Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March

< February 2014	Deletion review archives	April 2014 >

31 March 2014

Paul McDonald (musician) – Endorse close & Relist. Spartaz called it right; The close was correct based on the information available at the time. Better information came to light later, and since the closing admin agreed that this new information would have changed his decision, the best thing would have been to just relist it. This is why it's suggested that the first step in disputing a close is to contact the closing admin on his/her user talk page. The odds are, this could have all be resolved quicker via that route. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article was redirected on the basis that it could only be sourced with "mentions in TV guides and gossip magazines", and that it fails WP:MUSIC due to none of McDonald's albums selling more than 10,000 copies. I understand the closing administrator, Phantomsteve's decision to redirect the article based on the discussion that took place. However, unfortunately, a few important points seem to have gone unnoticed by the voters. Firstly, the article when it was redirected, was sourced with more than just "TV guides and gossip magazines" - USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Daily News, and MTV were all being used, and all of them provided significant coverage. A very quick Google search of my own yielded results from The Huffington Post and Yahoo! Music. I have no doubt that I could find countless more professional, independent sources if I took the time. Secondly, there's nothing in WP:MUSIC saying that an artist has to sell a certain number of albums in order to be notable. In fact, an artist doesn't even have to meet every single criteria in those guidelines in order to have an article. The main thing, I believe, is that he or she meets criteria #1, which is basically the same as the general notability guidelines. As I mentioned above, McDonald meets this criteria several times over. However, he also meets criteria #2, #4, #9, #10, #12, and possibly #6. I've discussed the matter with Phantomsteve, who agreed with my reasoning and told me to open a discussion about it here. Jpcase (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin - as mentioned above, the outcome of the discussion was clearly in favour of there being no stand-alone article for this musician. As such, the redirection was the logical result, as the musician's name would be a valid search term. However, had there been an argument as presented above, I would have re-listed to allow further discussion. I feel that the argument presented here by Jpcase is sufficient to warrant a discussion on whether this article should be re-instated. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Relist if the closing admin agrees that there is a new point that would bear further discussion then they should just go ahead and do that rather than feel constrained to wait for us to process wank over the close for a week and then do precisely the same thing. For the record, the AFD close was perfectly fine and redirecting is by far the most common outcome in these cases. I can't see the outcome changing but it wasn't the most well attended discussion so further discussion wouldn't hurt. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close but allow recreation. I would ordinarily be all for relisting but this is a discussion from January and re-opening a 4-month-old discussion just to overturn a redirect that the closer agrees should now be reconsidered seems a bit bureaucratic. There's a good-faith request to recreate the article - surely a discussion here is enough to establish WP:CONSENSUS for recreation without having to go back to AFD? Stalwart111 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close and relist, speedy if possible. I'm not convinced sorting through the sources there is going to be best done here, I found 3-4 USA Today references but most of them were single mentions, and one might almost reach the "signficant coverage" bar Jpcase argues. If the result of an AfD was going to be a lot more obvious, I'd supoort simple recreation, but I don't believe the article has, in the state it existed in before the redirect, an obvious and indisputable outcome. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm open to having this relisted if people feel that it would be helpful. But if it's decided that we should just have the discussion here, then I feel that significant coverage can be displayed pretty easily. In addition to this article from USA Today [1] (which I assume is the one Joe Decker is referencing), the article at the time of redirection included (among others):

This two-page article from the Nashville Business Journal [2]

This article from MTV [3]

This article from OK Magazine [4]

This article from the New York Daily News [5]

This article from the Huntsville Times [6]

These articles from People Magazine [7], [8], [9]

Additionally, there are countless articles out there from McDonald's American Idol run that devote varying amounts of coverage to him. Here are just a few examples:

Entertainment Weekly - [10], [11], [12]

TVLine.com - [13], [14], [15]

Yahoo! Music - [16], [17], [18]

The Hollywood Reporter - [19], [20], [21]

All of these are from 2011, but in a odd bit of timing, McDonald has popped up in the news again just this past week, due to his divorce from Nikki Reed.

The New York Daily News - [22]

Los Angeles Times - [23]

USA Today - [24]

Fox News - [25]

MTV - [26]

--Jpcase (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 March 2014

List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_Podiums – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The deletion discussion was closed prematurely. Few arguments had been given which were primarily based on misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines and one on a grammar issue, which isn't even justification for deletion. The closing user didn't provide any reasoning for the final decision. I raised the issue on the closing user's talk page but there was no response. Tvx1 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As far as I can see, the discussion was closed late (after 8 days), not prematurely. --Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closing administrator's last edit was on 28 March. I can't imagine any way to justify this closing, but then that is why it is helpful to find out what the closing admin has to say. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am I in the twilight zone? The AfD was closed after 7+ days, as it's supposed to be. Three editors expressed their opinion that it should be deleted. One editor made an obtuse argument criticizing the basis of the other editors' votes, but also made it clear that they were not making a "keep" vote. Zero editors expressed an opinion that it should be kept. There is no other way that this AfD could have possibly been closed. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 07:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the discussion ran the full seven days, there were two delete opinions plus the nominator, and one who disagreed but wrote: "Did I vote "keep" here? No I didn't". This could not have been closed any other way. JohnCD (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD's are not about number of votes but about the presented arguments. I have clearly proven in the AFD that the presented arguments were in fact unjustified and therefore there was no founded argument for either keep or delete and the correct action would have been to relist it. Tvx1 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator clearly expressed a valid argument that the article was a content fork, and that the information in the article already exists elsewhere. I interpreted the other two delete votes as a "per nominator" type of vote (I took the grammar comment by Lugnuts to be a joke, since that is very obviously not a reason to delete an article, and I know he is an experienced editor who would know that). Your argument referencing WP:OTHERSTUFF was a complete misinterpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your argument referencing WP:RELAR was not convincing and was refuted by Falcadore, and you made it clear that you weren't making an implicit "keep" vote with your comments. So, I would strongly disagree with you that you had "clearly proven in the AFD that the presented arguments were in fact unjustified". ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I sometimes don't put in a !vote that can be summarised by a word in bold. When I do that, I expect closers (and other debate participants too, but particularly closers) to read and understand what I say. The fact that nobody said "keep" in bold is true, but it's also snout-counting. What it has to be weighed against is the fact that during that discussion Tvx1 comprehensively destroyed all the arguments for deletion. That was an AfD without a conclusion, and should be treated accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that Tvx1 "comprehensively destroyed" anything at all. See my comments above. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I disagree with your analysis is that although the AfD nominator was right that this is a content fork, content forking is often best dealt with by redirecting or merging, so citing CFORK as a reason for deletion is often a non sequitur. The reference to RELAR seemed quite apposite to me, and I don't see on what basis you describe it as "not convincing".—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your contention that CFORK is "often a non sequitur" is interesting, I can't find any guideline or policy to say an admin should apply less weight to an argument based on CFORK, and you can be pretty certain in a debate where no one mentions merging or redirects the closing admin would be vilified for closing the debate as such. Or perhaps one for you to add to WP:ATA? Except of course I've read your opinion on that essay many times. Given you seem here to be expressing a new argument regarding how to deal with CFORK and expressing disagreement with the admin concerning RELAR (not something I personally could evaluate without seeing the articles in question), I don't see how that converts to your declared "fact" that the arguments were comprehensively destroyed, it just seems to be a new line of xFD argument. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CFORK shouldn't necessarily receive less weight. It's an excellent argument for removing the current content. But generally the best thing to do with content forks is to redirect or merge rather than delete outright, so CFORK is usually a weak reason for actually turning that title into a redlink. You're right to say nobody mentioned merging or redirecting, which is why I said that was a debate without a conclusion. There were no decent arguments remaining.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean it's only something people aren't allowed to say in a deletion discussion if they don't also opine to merge or redirect? Again finding no policy or guideline to this effect, how you can claim "comprehensive destruction" based on an argument not presented, and seems to amount to little more than S Marshall's ATA of CFORK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I wish to make it clear that I was the original nominator. If I should not comment on that basis then feel free to ignore.

Far from destroyed, it seems to me that Tvx1 was guessing. Quite apart from the borderline personal nature of the objection, citing OTHERSTUFF demonstrated an obvious lack of familiarity with the policy. CFORK clearly applies and I object to the nature in which the original objection was placed, in which the nomination was criticised without actually objecting to the nomination. The fact that Tvx1 refused to make his/her opinion clear contributed to the deletion as no objection to the deletion was placed and in fact has still not been placed. He/she is objecting to the closure and to an impression that the policies were misinterpreted. It seems to me that the misinterpretation was Tvx1's. --Falcadore (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Obvious content fork and that was the point of the nomination. I would have closed the same except I would have discarded the delete vote based on grammar. I'd like a better consensus before reaching for the TNT. I think a very selective merge would also have been an option but since that wasn't really raised in the discussion it would have been a stonking supervote to go any other way then delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a relist would have been better given the discussion and I'd have done that--the grammar comment just threw the discussion off. But it's within admin discretion even with throwing out the grammar !vote--the implied CFORK issue just didn't get discussed. So I'd prefer SW just relist at this point. But I see no basis for DRV claiming this needs to be relisted--the CFORK issue looks real and the OTHERSTUFF counter-argument didn't address the issue (unneeded duplication of material) in any real way. I just suspect there is a counter argument and would like to hear it (I can't make it--I know nothing about racing or how these articles are different). Hobit (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The goal of AfD is to reach community consensus, and I don't think that was done here. In addition to the nominator, we've got 1 person arguing delete based on grammar; that should be disregarded completely. We've got another person arguing delete based on "per nom", which doesn't really add anything to the discussion. And then we've got some rambling discussion about OTHERSTUFF, which I've read several times and I still can't figure out if anybody is arguing for any particular outcome. So, no problem with a "premature" close, at least from the counting days point of view, but certainly no consensus reached yet, so extending the discussion time seems like the right course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my comment above: that came out sounding harsher than I intended. I don't think the closing admin was wrong, or operating outside of the limits of administrative discretion. But, it was right there on the limits, and in my opinion, a relisting for another week would have been a better option. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2014

Forensics of repressed memory – Endorse. Several reviewers suggested variations on moving this to draft space so it could be reworked into something we can use. That seems reasonable, so that's what I'm going to do. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Forensics of repressed memory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Consensus not reached. The discussion received more keep votes than delete votes. In addition, the article received a SA rating from the wikilaw project, and should not have been up for deletion. --Emt mast (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close per WP:NOTVOTE. An IP user saying it's useful is not a policy-based argument for the article to be kept. Additionally several of the IPs implied that the article is part of an attempt to run an under-the-radar course using wikipedia, which I've passed on to Education noticeboard/Incidents. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The ips seem related as they are from the same vicinity, and an ip mentioned it being of a class. While in good faith, see also, WP:MEAT and wp:spa. I suggest to the editors to use wp:drafts or make edits to the related article, to make it in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines. If they choose to make it instructional, I have imported it to Wikiversity from a link in the AfD. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 07:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. The delete arguments were the strongest. The AfD noted "While it is true that I have no idea how the citation system works, other editors can convert the citations." However, editors writing about Forensics of repressed memory as a class research topic should know how to put a footnote at the end of each sentence. Yes, it is a lot of work to footnote each sentence as you develop a Wikipedia article and even more work to have to go back and footnote 180 or so sentences. The editors of the article might want to rewrite a draft article from scratch, footnoting each sentence as they go along using Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: the basics to guide them. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion seems to have been in accordance with the guidelines. But I'm a bit concerned that DRV's tendency to produce a simplistic and definitive outcome from a complex discussion might lead us astray here. I do wonder if there isn't an encyclopaedia article to write, and if so, maybe the nominator here has relevant knowledge we should be drawing upon. Perhaps I could ask people from Wikiproject Law and Wikiproject Psych to take a look and comment on whether this is mainstream forensic psychology or a fringe theory; would anyone object to that?—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the role of AfD, surely? Not Deletion Review, which is essentially a procedural process, as per WP:DRVPURPOSE. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. DRV might send this back to AfD with a direction that the AfD considers another possibility.—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've got an article that looks like it came from some other source (school paper perhaps) that is actually pretty well-written but lacks in-line citations. Normally that wouldn't be a reason for deletion (in-line cites are good and standard but not required), but issues of OR were raised. Looking at the article, those seem to be reasonable concerns. So Endorse deletion as being within admin discretion. That said, I'd move it to the DRAFT namespace in the hopes it can be fixed by the original author with some help from the community--there appears to be some potential here. Hobit (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have significant subject matter expertise in this (and please understand, I am trying to walk a fairly fine line here between giving you enough information, and not hurting myself professionally). The article was originally written for another source (a kind of encyclopedia of investigative protocols). That project was abandoned by the publisher. As I was not paid for it and the copyright reverted back to me, I wanted to see it put to use. Any changes made by the publisher were removed (including about half the citations, as they were to other parts of that project) and the tone changed enough to avoid any possible future issues with this client. I have NO official involvement with the college, I am not a college student and I am not currently teaching any classes on or directly related to this subject. While I suspect the instructor to be an acquaintance that I told about posting the article, I have no proof of that at this time.

As a policy point, it looks to me like this one has driven off a person with significant subject matter expertise in several fields, and apparently a class full of students that could likely have been put to work revising the article. I am aware of at least 3 other SME's in my circle of friends that have gone through the same issue with AfD over the last few years (on subjects where they are among the worlds top experts!). If WP is still trying to attract contributors, then at some point you need to do something about driving them away with AfD.

Emt mast (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The core issue is that wikipedia as a whole isn't built on, and doesn't defer to, expertise; it is built on and defers to secondary sources and very little else. Experts in a whole range of fields get tripped up on this. As the AfD nominator, if you do get the article undeleted into the Draft namespace or something, feel free to ping me for feedback on improvements you make. Use {{ping|Stuartyeates}} on any talk page and I'll get notified and take a look. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet WP asks for expert intervention (see Repressed memory). But lack of citation wasn't part of the AfD. Indeed, it cited sources throughout the article (though in a different format that WP uses), and was better sourced than half the articles in WP. Also note that I asked the community what else they wanted sources for. The response back was a general tag, and the note " recover tag deleted by article's primary author; large chunks of text with no citations; single tag better than peppering the article with 30-40 "citation needed" templates)". That is an exceedingly unhelpful response, as the "citation needed" tags would have been filled in over time, or deleted where the continuous citation still applied (at least as I had time to do). That wasn't done, despite being asked for. The AdF was not over citations. It was over OR and Synthesis, neither of which were present. The responses in the AdF from myself and the IP's were essentially "its good content. If you don't like the writing style, edit it to fit". IMO that is a much stronger policy point than it was given credit for. WP does not get nearly the number of editors contributing large blocks as it did a few years ago (at least according to an article on /. last year). If that is true (and I believe it is), then at some point you need to figure out that most people with expertise and a casual interest don't have the time or patience for what we are doing right now.

I will say, I do appreciate your offer of help. I would have appreciated it far more had it been made while I was interested in writing this article. Emt mast (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close because it reflected the WP policy-based consensus but simple deletion would have been highly unsatisfactory and probably something more constructive could have been proposed. As it stood, the content was not suitable for WP main space but I agree with those who think something could be done to make it suitable. I'm glad Sidelight12 moved it to Wikiversity at v:Forensics of repressed memory. Thincat (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Classic case of original research but perhaps we can find a suitable editor to work with the nominator to help them rework this into something we can put in mainspace. As they know the subject they should be able to find the relevant citations to flesh this out. That would be the very best outcome. @Drmies: might know someone who could help? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 March 2014

Akbar Golrang – Endorse original deletion. This has been here for 9 days and not gathering much discussion. For the sake of cleaning up the backlog, I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a weak "it's probably not ready for main article space yet" per @Randykitty:. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, in these edits, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([27]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on the evidence in the draft, I'd still say there is no evidence of notability. Publishing books in itself does not make someone notable, we need evidence that they have been noted... However, I have no time right now to search for book reviews or anything like that right now, so I won't !vote yet. The original closure was fine of course, but I don't think that's really an issue here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the draft is at [[28]]. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have his full name in his native tongue? Akbar means great in arabic and may not be a part of his proper name. VIAF is also confused about his name, I've asked them to fix it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Akbar" is his first name. The Swedish-Persian dictionary is written in collaboration with Bahman Golrang.

Erik Holst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.17.25 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

AlphaCom – Endorse original AfD and first DRV – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I found another source providing information on AlphaCom which I believe satisfies Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. The source is http://aplawrence.com/Security/ssh.html . The author of that article has been mentioned in TechRepublic with regards to the author's knowledge in the area of terminals: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ap-lawrence-delivers-sco-unix-linux-information151and-lots-of-it/#. 121.99.164.96 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with using self-published sources is that in many instances we can't entirely guarantee that there has been any editorial oversight. That's generally the biggest issue when it comes down to it. I'd also like to mention that opening a new deletion review the same day that the previous one closed is generally not seen as a particularly good idea unless you have multiple sources to use to show notability or argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the self-published source has been referenced by a more authoritative source? I see other articles in the same category where most if not all of its references are self-published and in some cases are what I would consider less authoritative than those in the AlphaCom article.
Previous closer's comment. I'm a bit confused about what is being reviewed here. If it's a review of my DRV close, then frame the review in that way. If it's a review of a single self-published source, this doesn't seem to add anything substantive to the draft which was discussed earlier. I think this discussion should be speedily closed. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse prev DRV and AFD. Its borderline disruptive to list something again the day the previous discussion closed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dieselpunk – Mu. This isn't really about endorsing or overturning the original AfD. It's about several years have gone by and the environmental factors that went into the AfD closure may no longer apply. So, closing this DRV, restoring the article, and re-listing it on AfD, where the proper discussion can take place. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Before I express some viewpoints, I am requesting an Overturn and Restore regarding Dieselpunk the article not only passes all forms of WP:GNG, has been covered by numerous reliable sources, but is also inherently academic.

This article's AfD history is extensive. The first one in 2005 had deletes citing a lacking in WP:GNG and some forms of WP:OR which during the time, may be true. However the genre and the article has come a long way since. Today I have found multiple independent reliable sources referencing Dieselpunk as a distinct genre separate from other cyberpunk derivatives and sets a clear definition as to what it means. Here are some sources:

News publications:

Book publications:

Game publications (I was unable to access some sources due to corporate blocking):

Unknown:

Polish

Just a note, the article changes significantly with every AfDs. The article should always have been notable enough to be independent. OR and unreliable sources can be removed and cruft can always be clean and the article should be retained per WP:PRESERVE.

I am requesting that this version be restored. There are already copious citations and seems to meet Wikipedia standards.

This article remains a Wikipedia conundrum. From a non-policy standpoint I have an interest in deleted articles with extensive debates and articles that can never seem to stay in the grave. To me it represents a form of notability which exists on a sub-cultural level. I have great enthusiasm and hope that with new sets of eyes and a great expansion in the genre since 2005, that consensus can change! Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That version of the article should remain deleted. It was deleted after an AFD discussion in May 2010, and the decision was endorsed at deletion review in June 2010. In July 2011, User:Valoem restarted an identical version of the article, which eventually was redirected (again) following an ANI discussion. (See Talk:Dieselpunk for the complete history.) The nominator is welcome to create a new version of the article that meets Wikipedia guidelines. This version does not. - Eureka Lott 00:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is a strictly procedural debate. I am questioning the outcome of both the thrid nomination and DRV. Both outcomes were certainly controversial and AfD results should have pointed to no consensus. Once again if OR is an issue it can be resolved per WP:PRESERVE. Also I did a bold restore in 2011 and the article had been edited since. Looking at that version some cruft can definitely be removed, however the core context is maintainable. Due to the history of the article, (also what happened last time I did a bold restore) I thought it be wiser to follow standard procedure and receive permission. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're making up your own rules. As far as I'm aware, there's no review of deletion review. If that did exist, the challenges could go on forever. There also is no such thing as a "bold restore". (In fact, if you search for "bold restore", the top results are about your attempt to sidestep the previous decisions.) It may be possible to create a viable article on this subject, but the book is closed on this version. - Eureka Lott 02:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its perfectly OK to ask DRV to revisit a discussion that last took place in 2010. In wiki terms that was the middle-ages and standards and sources move on. Lets drop the history lesson and old grudges and just concentrate on the sourcing since that is the only issue that a decision will be based on here. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EurekaLott, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 16 reports a case with 18 AfDs and 11 DRVs. Unscintillating (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the nominator. Of the sources above, were any of these discounted by previous discussions. Secondly, please take what you consider to be the two best sources and describe how they meet the GNG and RS. Everything else in this discussion is froth and irrelevant. The only question we have to answer is whether the article now meets inclusion standards, so those two sources are what we need to understand. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is enough reliable source material to support a standalone article. Also, as of March 2014, there still does not seem to be agreement on the meaning of the term: dieselpunk -- "the grafting together of 1930s and modern technology", dieselpunk -- "a heresy in which diesel fuel and nuclear power replace steam power", Dieselpunk -- "from the 1920s, when diesel fuel began showing promise of more power", Dieselpunk is "a steampunk spinoff with a concentration on World War II iconography", U.S. Trademark 85,727,626 Dieselpunk beer trademark, "Steampunk and its competitive sibling "dieselpunk" take stylistic cues from H.G. Wells, Jules Verne, Edgar Rice Burroughs and other authors and feature machinery powered by something other than electricity or batteries." In fact, Shimeru's close of AfD3 noted "This article appears to have been constructed by defining a genre or style and then finding things that fit that definition." Wikipedia is not the place to pick one of the several meanings for dieselpunk and then find things that fit that definition. Requesting permission to recreate an article requires that you first note how the prior reasons for deletion (in each of the prior 3 AfDs) have been overcome. Perhaps you can cover the dieselpunk topic in the Steampunk article. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that we aren't actually considering a deletion. There have been deletions in the past, but what we're actually deciding is between having a separate article (as the nominator wishes) or whether to cover the topic of Dieselpunk under Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk (as now). "Endorse", strictly speaking, does not mean "delete" in this case.
The last time we considered this was in 2010. The first few sources the nominator cites are from 2013, 2011 and 2014. I don't need to read any more: obviously the term is still current and is generating lasting, if not particularly widespread, interest among critics and journalists.
DRV doesn't make content decisions at that level of detail. With four-year-old deletions all we do is make sure that nobody's doing an end-run around a previous consensus without any new sources. That clearly isn't happening: the conversion from a redirect was a perfectly normal BRD edit and should be dealt with accordingly, on the relevant talk page. In view of the amount of anger this extremely trivial decision is causing, please would the DRV closer consider specifically directing that the redirect is not to appear at RfD unless an actual consensus about that emerges.—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far I as know all the sources are new and not referenced in the previous debate, I removed one of the dups for the books, but the sources would suggest the definition as "Genre focusing on futurist diesel based technology influenced by the interwar period to the 50s". Some strong sources that define this are the Gatehouse Gazette and The Daily Dot. Though still an emerging genre the sources should more than suffice a separate article. The purpose of DRV is that I want to retain the core context of the version I highlighted with cruft removal and additional sources, I do not believe a complete rewrite is necessary in this case. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 01:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty plain there are new sources and so a new article can be created and a new AfD held (if desired). Given the request for a restoration of an old version, I think DRV does have something of a role (though of course an admin could move into user space on their own). So allow recreation/restoration without prejudice to a new AfD (though it would be a good idea to give folks a few days to get the new sources in...) Hobit (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~The new refs don't cut muster.~~ This is a procedural mess. FWIW I voted keep at the last afd. Szzuk (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at them. The Daily Dot cuts muster, I was scanning it expecting it to be a blog, shallow or from a mickey mouse organisation, but I think it is ok. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In general terms DRV looks at process rather then substituting its own view of a discussion for that of the closing admin (unless the close is so manifestly wrong it can't stand). Usually we would relist an AFD if new sources come forward as AFD is the correct place to look at sourcing. However, since the Gatehouse Gazette looks like a self-published magazine and most certainly does not pass muster as a reliable source, I can't see the point of relisting this at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What about [29] which looks to be reliable (staff writer). It's an entire article on the topic. And the NYT at least defines the term and places it in context--something that was the crux of the AfDs. All published after the latest AfD. Hobit (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Epulp] this source off google books and this source which briefly defines dieselpunk. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One article on its own isn't enough and I looked at what Valoem defined as the two best sources. If the second is clearly not good enough then we are still shy a required source.. I don't know if daily dot is RS but happy to defer to Hobit on the subject. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not impressed by epulp - if this even a physically published book? Its an anthology of stories and I can't work out who the publisher is. This isn't an RS for the GNG and one mention in a book isn't substantive enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times mentions the definition, and how about the The Register-Guard source and the term appears in video games as well. I can not access this links from here, so if someone can take a look at Altered Gamer and Lazy Gamer that would be great. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions don't cut it and the Register Guard article is not only about Steampunk but also looks like a reprinted press release so doesn't count. If you haven't see the sources then how can you expect me to evaluate them? You are desparately scraping the bottom of the barrel here and I suggest you just wait to see what other people think. I am after all towards the delete end of the spectrum. On the other hand, if I'm happy with the sources then you know they are solid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation :::Correct WP deletion process , like all WP process looks at the result. If a discussion leading to deletion is obsolete, there has to be a way of starting a new one. There has to be a way of creating a new article if there is new material and getting a new community decision on it. Fortunately WP has no ability to make irreversible decisions. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY, and IAR. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is overridden by basic policy considerations, which take precedence over process. I have no way of knowing in this subject field if a new article will be acceptable, or what the community will think, but the only way to find out is to try. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per new sources provided above. As Szzuk said, The Daily Dot cuts muster. Cavarrone 21:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 March 2014

26 March 2014

25 March 2014

Matthew Vaughan – No Consensus – The major question here seems to be how far WP:BLP goes in calling for deletion of unsourced biographies; does it just give the admin discretion to delete, or does it go further and mandate deletion? Opinion is split right down the middle on that. Since the original AfD didn't get a lot of discussion, I'm going to relist this. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There is certainly no consensus to delete this page. The discussion was improperly closed with the comment that it was a BLP without reliable resources which made its deletion mandatory. However, this is the biography of an actor who had a major role in a major British soap opera for four years. There was no contentious material in the article and the fact that he appeared in the programme is something that can be easily ascertained from a multitude of sources. Since TV programmes are media in their own right they are themselves reliable sources, even if primary. While I contend that playing a major role in a major soap for four years does make an actor notable, even if he has not had any major roles since, I have no problem with a close to delete after full discussion and a consensus. However, I do have a problem with closure on what I consider to be wholly spurious grounds. The closer considers that since the article was nominated for deletion the entire content of the article thus becomes contentious and the deletion was therefore justified. I completely disagree with this interpretation. This is an issue of notability of the subject, not of contentious material within the article. This is also an issue of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPROD not actually saying what some editors clearly think they say. Nowhere do they say that articles on living persons should be deleted out of hand just because they have no "reliable" sources. A BLPPROD should not even be placed on an article that has a source, even a "non-reliable" one. They call for improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I voted keep and was surprised to see the closing comment saying that deletion was mandatory, it gave the impression the AfD discussion was irrelevant and that the content was contentious. However I read no contentious content. The issue in hand has also been discussed on the talk page of the closer. Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As closer, I remain of the view that my closure was correct. It is uncontested that this WP:BLP article had no reliable sources at the time of closure, and nobody was apparently able to find any during the AfD. WP:BLPSOURCES, part of the main BLP policy, provides: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". It follows from this that any BLP article that has no reliable sources at all must be removed in its entirety if it is challenged in its entirety, such as by way of a deletion proposal. Per its own terms, the application of WP:BLP takes priority over all considerations of consensus. Sandstein 15:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't what BLP says. Nowhere does it say that any article should face mandatory deletion. You appear to be putting your own spin on it which just isn't there. It's not the material in the article that's being challenged by sending to Afd; it's the notability of the subject. They are totally different things. Even BLPPROD does not mandate deletion of an article with even one source, even if that source is not considered to be "reliable". If what you say is correct then surely it would do. This is the main reason I put it up for deletion review; we cannot have administrators deleting articles claiming a mandate that isn't there. Allowing this to pass unchallenged would set a very dangerous precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I don't agree with the keep arguments that appearing in one soap opera is enough to pass the notability guidelines. However, it is not mandatory to delete unsourced BLPs, and the BLP policy doesn't say it is mandatory. The policy instead is that any contentious unsourced information should be removed. Challenging material because you think it might be wrong, and suggesting an article should be deleted due to the subject not being notable aren't the same thing, and the closer was wrong to conflate the two. I can't see the article while it was deleted, but it doesn't sound like the material was contentious (i.e., no one seemed in doubt that he did play a role in a soap opera). The closer was simply wrong about the policy, and there was no consensus from the discussion whether to keep or delete the content, so the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. (Personally, I think the suggestion to redirect to the character he played makes sense, but there obviously wasn't a consensus to do that). Calathan (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Even if the article had been a valid WP:BLPPROD candidate (and it barely escaped this), the policy speaks of "if the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted" and "if you decide to delete the biography". Now, I would have agreed with an AfD close of delete except for the closing comment about deletion being mandatory. Since other types of close might also have been within discretion, I think it appears that the closer may have felt excessively constrained. An AfD nomination indeed challenges the existence of the article as a stand-alone item but it is not necessarily a claim that all (or, indeed, any) of the specific content is likely to be challenged. Thincat (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, though I'm not unhappy with the article being deleted, I was also slightly surprised at the reasonong. My understanding is that certain unsourced BLP's meet speedy deletion criteria. There's no requirement for reliablity of sources. Noone is challenging (or demanding additional sources to prove) the fact the subject appeared in a UK soap opera, but simply questioning whether this was significant enough to meet notability requirements. Sionk (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLP policy requires us to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious information about living people (emphasis mine). It does not say "delete articles about living people".—S Marshall T/C 17:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually BLP does require at least one source. And unless the article was edited and I missed it, it cited only one non-RS, source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's nothing in WP:BLP that requires at least one source. WP:V says you need a source for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, but even so, there must be a consensus for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From BLP... All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you are copying is the summary of the WP:BLPPROD process from WP:BLP. BLPPROD is a separate deletion process from AFD, and the instructions for BLPPROD do not apply to AFD. Furthermore, while I can't see when the article was created while it was deleted, Thincat says above that it was (just barely) not a valid candidate for BLPPROD. Also keep in mind that even an unreliable source or external link prevents an article from being deleted by BLPPROD if the source/link was in the article before the BLPPROD tag was added (again, I can't see if the article had any unreliable sources or external links right now). Regardless of if the article was eligible for BLPPROD (and I trust Thincat that it wasn't), it would still need to have had a BLPPROD tag in place for seven days before it could be deleted under that rationale . . . having an AFD tag for seven days would not be sufficient, as AFD is a different process than BLPPROD. Calathan (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not debating the points you raised, which I believe are accurate. My above comments were limited to affirming that BLP does in fact require at least one source for articles created after March 18, 2010. My position regards this particular AfD is stated below. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article either but I looked at the Google archive[30] and saw IMDB (given as an "external link") and implied reference to the TV series itself. Thincat (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's also my recollection. Hence my above statement that the article had only one non-RS source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would save it from a BLPPROD! If it can't even be BLPPRODed, I really don't think the argument that it should be deleted out of hand at AfD holds any water whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact as far as I know, any article is susceptible to a PROD at any time, with or without a reason, with or without a source. At DRV we would not normally think PROD of any kind was relevant to an AfD outcome.

There are editors who think any article without sources can and should be deleted. That's a legitimate point of view, but it's not policy (not even for biographies). The true case is that any article that's unsourceable should be deleted or redirected. This is one of the functions of the AfD process: to decide whether it's sourceable.

Nominating an article for deletion on the basis that it's unsourceable creates a rebuttable presumption that the material should be deleted. This presumption is rebutted by providing a reliable source. In this case we have a source, the reliability of which is disputed. Therefore we look for a consensus, and I don't see one.

DRV won't care about NACTOR, we'll treat it as we usually treat SNGs. We care about WP:V, and specifically the "challenged or likely to be challenged" bit, but that's a value judgment about the reliability of the source available and therefore it's subject to the consensus at AfD. It's not an overriding consideration.

However, I think reasonable people could differ about this one and I do understand how Sandstein reached his conclusion. This was almost within discretion. Weak overturn and relist.—S Marshall T/C 13:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse Right call but the weakest reason. This article clearly fails NACTOR, RS and V. When you cut through all the back and forth, any 'Keep' argument essentially boils down to IAR. I might be able to overlook shortcomings in one of the the three FAILSs, but chucking all three standards is a bridge too far for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and relist - I think the line highlighted above is open to interpretation and I certainly see the merit in the interpretation taken by the closer. That said, it does specifically apply to PROD processes, not to AFD. The best way to manage situations that require those sorts of interpretations is to subject them to further discussion. There doesn't seem to be consensus above that the closer's interpretation of that particular policy is necessarily supported by others. That's probably not a discussion for this AFD (if it is relisted) but for other forums. But in the absence of strong support for that interpretation, the discussion should probably be allowed to continue until there is a consensus either way. Stalwart111 08:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - fails WP:N is an enormous hurdle for a deletion discussion to overcome (BLP or not). A smallish, balanced headcount + an overwhelming policy precendent means close with the precedent. If the "unsourced BLP" problem can be overcome, fix it, and the question raised here is moot. If it can't, we can't do anything helpful here anyhow. Wily D 08:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite with added sources, if there are any. IMdB is reliable enough to prove the role to a reasonable degree of confidence, which is enough to pass BLPPROD. We do not however usually keep articles where no other source can be found. It amazes me that almost nobody here or at the AfD has discussed whether there are additional sources. It would seem to be that someone must have written something -- he was a major character in a major soap opera. Whether such a role is sufficient for notability is a matter of judgement, and AfD is the way to find out--but it needs to be an AfD based on either the available sources, or a determination that there aren't any. The close was improper: a consensus that the sources weren't enough would justify deletion,, and I do see absence of consensus. But deletion was not mandatory in the absence of consensus when there was reasonable evidence for the basic factor that might give notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer made the correct call as the article is entirely unsourced. If reliable sources can be found, a new attempt can be made write the article. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't entirely unsourced, which made it ineligible for summary deletion even under WP:BLPPROD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this specific closure, which misstates policy. Indeed if the closer's summary of policy above was accurate then unsourced or poorly sourced BLPs could be deleted on sight by anyone with no process at all. There is no policy anywhere which mandates the deletion of unsourced BLPs simply for being unsourced. The section quoted above only applies to contentious material, and the article did not say anything contentious. If that policy section was intended to apply everywhere when the word "contentious" would not be in it. It is certainly possible to close an AfD as Delete based on the lack of any reliable sources, but not on these grounds. Hut 8.5 07:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn to NC~~ I have a lot of sympathy for the closer's view, but the reason given for the deletion just isn't correct. The article is sourced enough to be immune to BLPPROD, so that policy can't be used as the basis for deletion here. And WP:BLP only applies to contentious material Plus there are WP:RSs out there (none great, but enough to show he was in the show in question playing the character stated for certain). this for example. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On further thought, relist is a better option here. Hobit (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite endorse. This was a BLP without reliable sourcing. The majority of commenters at the AFD favored removing the article. The close therefore fell within the closer's discretion, even though the closing statement may have been too strong. However, the closer missed the best closing action available, to redirect the subject to List of Emmerdale characters (1990)#Michael Feldmann. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although I think the reasoning provided by the closer above isn't great. More or less I agree with Ad Orientem that the two keep opinions are IAR, neither playing to arguments toward general notability via sources (none were shown in the discussion), nor inherent notability described in Wikipedia special notability guidelines. As to whether there are better sources, I don't believe that is actually what DRV is here to determine, that would be AfD2. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think DRV is primarily a discussion about the validity of the close. So a bad close and the right decision should lead to overturn, as should a bad close and a bad decision. Was deletion mandatory? Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is nothing in WP:BLP to support the view that the mere listing of an unsourced BLP article at AfD is a basis to close the AfD discussion as delete the article. The misses the whole point about consensus discussions. Here, the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. As for the topic, the only source I could find on the topic is Daily Mirror December 30, 2010. The delete outcome is very likely, but it needs to be done correctly to maintain editor support for the consensus process. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Ad Orientem has convinced me. Reyk _YO! 08:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is no policy that requires unsourced BLP's to be immediately deleted. This AfD was "no consensus" at best. I think it deserves another shot. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 20:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 March 2014

Fox Attacks – Moot, after the closer self-reverted. – Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

A nonadmin closure that didn't take into effect the fact that an indeffed sock not only trolled the entire discussion, but also pasted a bunch of irrelevant articles and claimed them as sources. The initial closing administrator reopened it upon hearing of this and the first comment on the relisting showed an understanding of the issues, but the nonadmin closure has kind of mucked up the whole thing from a consensus standpoint. I'd like to see this get a clean hearing, but I think, at this point, a simple renomination would do more harm than good. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reopening the discussion is enough and that we can proceed from where we are now that the closure has been undone. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is pretty moot now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chimping out – Speedy deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 11:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Premature speedy deletion by one administrator (User:Scott) with no valid CSD reason or reference to WP:CSD, before consensus was reached

I added a note underneath the closing admin's closure (not in it), and contacted the admin with this edit here and a few before (I tend to revise my own edits as I tend to ramble). The closing admin has removed my remark which was a courtesy note (with this edit and the one before it saying on the ES "Please don't make me reply in two different venues", yet has in fact replied in two different venues: on his talk page, and by changing his own closing remarks.

An article is brought for discussion, it is being disucssed, but before consensus was reached (and by the way I was in favour of deletion), an admin takes it SPEEDY saying "racism isn't funny" as the closing reason, then adds "it is vandalism" into their closing argument (listing CSD G3) into their closing remarks – they had not listed a CSD reason in the original closing remarks.

There are plenty of articles on racist terms. It was premature to speedy close it just because one is an admin one doesn't need another's opinion for a SPEEDY, and the administrator should not have changed his own closing remarks to justify his actions. How can others have a discussion (and RFD stands for Redirects for Discussion, not Deletion) in these kind of cases? Sorry Scott, but it was premature for you to delete it while it was under discussion at the appropriate place. Si Trew (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Someone may think of a suitable place to which the redirect can link. Short-cutting the discussion prevents this. In general, a speedy close like any admin action is only justified if the consensus would obviously agree, and I don;t see enough discussion to see what the consensus would be. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Si is incorrect. This was not "an article on racist terms". It was a repulsive racist term (if you must, put it into Urban Dictionary; I won't link to that here) being used as a redirect to a legitimate topic (Mass racial violence in the United States). A nasty bit of subtle vandalism that had gone unnoticed. It shouldn't have been brought to RfD in the first place; it should have been tagged for speedy deletion. If I had seen the redirect at the time of its creation, I would have instantly deleted it. If I saw the term added into an article, I would not only remove it but revision delete it as grossly offensive material. Si seems to be upset that I didn't explicitly mention that the deletion was because it was vandalism. Well, I thought it was patently obvious at the time; evidently it wasn't. And no, I didn't "reply in two different venues". I replied at one place, my talk page, and then expanded the rationale based on that conversation. Not to "justify" anything, but to clarify my reasoning following an editor expressing concern about not understanding it. — Scott • talk 09:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has redirects for most of the repulsive racist terms I can think of. I've just checked. Is there something that makes this one different?—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked too before I brought it here, but deliberately didn't list the terms I could think of (and I have been called many things) since I thought that would be adding salt to the fire. (but dago is a DAB with a link to Wiktionary where it is described as offensive slang, but for example Guappo exists, and I thought Guappo (slang) existed but perhaps I was mistaken in my research). I said it should be deleted, because it is not mentioned at the target; the nominator said that sources vary on it, and Eric Partridge is long dead. So we have to achieve consensus first. Si Trew (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to S Marshall - and are any of them racist terms for valid topics? That go mysteriously undiscussed in the target article? All of the redirects beginning with N—r, for example, have germane targets relating directly or indirectly to the slur. I think there needs to be some evidence presented here that this redirect was anything but vandalism; I'm not seeing any. If this had been speedy tagged earlier in its history it would have gone instantly. — Scott • talk 13:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for example Nigger, which is simply from the spanish for Black. "Black" itself was once considered quite a racist term but now is not. What about queer or gay] or homo lesbo or whatever? They count by the same token. Just because a word is used pejoratively doesn't mean they don't exist. No consensus was reached — that is the point. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't "mean for example Nigger". Read my comment again. — Scott • talk 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we're in constant (edit conflict) here. Give me a chance. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't "all articles beginning with N—r" is it: you piped it to Speciial:PrefixIndex/Nigger. Just cos you don't like the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is quite an interesting article and well written, most of which I already knew. If I added Nigger minstrel I imagine that already exists, that would also be valid if WP:RS and WP:N and so on but I imagine it is already there. You can't even be bold enough to say the word yet you come here objecting to others. At RfD the other day there was a discussion about what to call a town in Serbia because in broken English a Bosnian I imagine said it was a Serbian word used pejoratively – and by the same reason I voted delete because it is an unlikely search term in English Wikipedia, not because it is pejorative. WP:NOTCENSORED. I don't like people saying fuck every fourth word where I come from, but they do (I don't) and I have to put up with it. WIkipedia can change the world, but not by moralising: by adding knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are completely incoherent and you don't seem to have understood what I wrote at all. Hopefully S Marshall, to whom I was replying, did. — Scott • talk 13:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave it there. Things have to achieve consensus. That means they have to be discussed, and they can be discussed by any editor, not just high-and-mighty administrators; it is a public discussion. IPs can contribute to it to. Where did I say "it is an article on racist terms", which you put in quotes to suggest that I had said that? I said merely it should be deleted because it is not mentioned at the article. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in your original post at the top of this page, where you said There are plenty of articles on racist terms. If you weren't implying that this redirect was somehow comparable, then it was an irrelevant comment. — Scott • talk 13:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand it, which is why I said it is an abuse of power. You shouldn't go around the XfD discussion boards and then removing others' comments – how is any other editor going to comprehend what anyone else actually said. I said above "There are plenty of articles on racist terms" and you quoted me below as "it is an article on racist terms", which is not what I said. You ask me to read up, but you don't read up yourself: those mean different things: I said nothing on whether any particular article itself was racist. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really appears that you need everything spelled out to you in the simplest possible terms. I'll add some extra words to my original comment for you. Si is incorrect in his reasoning. This was not "an article on racist terms" so that observation is irrelevant. And with that, I think I shan't reply to you any further here. — Scott • talk 14:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, back to the topic. I think the questions we should have been asking are:- (1) Is it possible that a good faith user might type "chimp out" in the search box, and (2) If they did, what are they actually looking for? If the answer is no, it's completely implausible that anyone would ever type that in the search box, then we should agree that it's vandalism and move on. If it's yes, it's plausible that someone might type that in the search box then there should probably be a discussion at RfD about whether there's a useful redirect target. I genuinely don't know. If Wiktionary covered it then I would say we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary there. Wiktionary doesn't, so I suppose I'd like to ask Si Trew: where do you think this could point?—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support speedy deletion of this insult. It's vandalism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that could have been supported at the original RFD. It is not up to one admin to take his own opinion and abuse the power of being an admin. I supported the deletion in the first place. But no consensus had been reached, the discussion had been there for eighteen hours. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear that I need to reply one final time. Take a look at WP:CSD, where you'll notice that the first sentence is The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. You're within your rights to dispute whether the page in question was vandalism, but your accusation of me "abus[ing] the power of being an admin" is unfounded. — Scott • talk 14:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion. No need to keep this crap for a full discussion. There were no incoming links so nothing broke, and Mass racial violence in the United States was a silly and racist target. If somebody can create a meaningful article about the racist expression or redirect it to a more meaningful target like an article about racist expressions then the deletion doesn't prevent that. The same editor created the same redirect at Chimp out. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. So that I don't get any more accusations hurled at me (and to back up my assertion that the first one was also vandalism), I'll let another admin get that one. — Scott • talk 16:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested deletion in the first place. The point is, the admin should not have SPEEDied it when it was under discussion, then after speedy closing it with the comment "racism is not funny" THEN add "Do I have to explain it? It is vandalism" whereas actually the only time it was said it was CSD:G3 was on the user's talk page but I was told not to put the same thing twice. So the record does not have anything saying it was closed as CSD:G3, the record has been vandalised by the admin by altering his own closing remarks, and so I bring it here thinking the admin should be less hasty. I went through due process: talked to the admin, replied on the WP:RFD page, and then came here. It is not as if the admin didn't read the messages because I get constant edit conflicts whenever I try to reply. But it should not go so SPEEDY, other editors may have other views. An editor brings something in good faith to an XfD and an admin SPEEDYs it by his own de facto but not de jure authority. That is not right. I don't know why that point, which I have spelled out several times, is not understood. I am not arguing whether the article should be deleted or not (I argued that where it should be argued) I am arguing that it should not have been SPEEDied on the whim of an admin when there was no consensus to do so. Wikipedia works by consensus. I didn't hurl any accusations and suggested we leave it at that some hours ago, and yet every time I try to add my opinion there is an edit conflict. Just stand back and let others have their opinion, Scott. Si Trew (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think I "hurled accusations at you" take a look at what I said. I said it politely, I said it intelligently, I gave examples, you thought I didn't understand those where they were perfectly pertinent examples in my opinion, I told you to leave it you, you didn't, you are WP:CANVASSING, and I pointed out where I thought you were wrong, in the proper venues at the proper times. I am often wrong. Are you the only person in the world who is always right? Si Trew (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I can't create a redirect page for "Nigger minstrel" because it is blocked for this reason:

You do not have permission to create pages, for the following reason:

The title "Nigger minstrel" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*nig{2,}er.* # nigger

Yet Blackface exists. This is not helping the creation of an encyclopaedia. "Nigger minstrel" exists in numerous articles. The fact it is offensive to some does not mean the term does not exist. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted message sounds like you have changed away from the default language "en - English" at Special:Preferences. Users with that see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit which explains what to do. If you have chosen en-GB or en-CA as language then note they are not recommended at Help:Preferences#User profile (written by me). We do have several valid article names with the N-word, but hundreds of other pages have been deleted as racism and vandalism so the word was blacklisted. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If this had been an actual, reasonably sourced article about the racist term, or a redirect to an article about racist epithets more generally, speedy deletion would likely have been inappropriate. But the redirect really had no point except to pejoratively equate the term to "unrest in African-American communities, such as the 1968 riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.", which is absolutely loathsome. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This also has elements wikipedia doesn't do "Things I just made up", and as long as it stays within the Stormfront (and the like) forums, this is the result that should happen.Naraht (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not a good target, not common enough slang it needs a redirect anyways (AFAICT). Hobit (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion Doing book searches shows that "chimp out" as a verb phrase has a variety of meanings, largely without racial implications. It's also not that much used. In any case the original target is wildly inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I don't see a problem with not waiting around for a lot of process before deleting. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - but recommend Scott (talk · contribs) cites a CSD and minimizes editorializing in future when he speedy deletes something up for XfD Storkk (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome - Scott (talk · contribs), I think something like snow close, G3. Pure vandalism, or G10. Pages that disparage some other entity, and serve no other purpose, would be more administrative than citing 'because racism isn't funny.' Also, the redirect had been there since 14 July 2013, so I don't see the administrative harm from having let the RfD run its course. As for the outcome, I could not find any reliable sources using the term "chimping out" and none that would link the chimping out redirect to its target. What's done is done and there's no need to undo it, so I endorse the outcome. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the original RFD nominator. The redirect appeared to be blatantly racist, and there doesn't seem to be a major procedural error that would've changed the outcome. KJ ^{click here} 02:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- could not have closed any other way. Reyk _YO! 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2014

22 March 2014

Lyndsey Turner (stage director) – Keep deleted. There seems to be general agreement between users with access to the ticket and those without access to the ticket that this is the right thing to do in this case and at this time. As I am closing this discussion, I will not contribute my own opinion on if I think the article should be kept or deleted, but having OTRS access I will confirm that the ticket does not seem to be factually misrepresented in this discussion. Please note that this does not preclude future examinations of the issue. Unless WP:OFFICE gets involved, substantive new drafts in userspace (particularly concerning potential later increases in notability of the subject) by established editors may be reconsidered by DRV regardless of any developments on the legal issues front. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting this page to be unprotected and reinstated. Ms Turner is a notable theatrical director in the UK. She won the best director award at the 2014 Critics' Circle Theatre Awards, which is one of the top awards in the industry alongside the Olivier and the Evening Standard Awards. Link for her award is here: [31]. She is the only award-winning director in the last 30 years who's been denied her own page. I strongly believe that she is notable and deserving of reinstatement. Thanks. Peripatetic (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been re-created several times using multiple sockpuppets by an abusive obsessed individual. Now is a great time not to do this. There are strong reasons for not having an article at this time. It is worrying that this particular round of requests was catalysed by yet another sockpuppet recreating the article at yet another title. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I am totally puzzled by this reply. I thought the only rationale behind the existence of an article was the subject's notability. This has been conclusively shown in Ms Turner's case. I am obviously not spending enough time in the right parts of Wikipedia. Oh well. Peripatetic (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be strong reasons for not having an article and there may be strong reasons for not announcing what these reasons are. Being created under different titles seems no sort of reason at all. Could an admin who knows nothing about this consult Guy, look at the article's (articles') history and see what might best be done? Is a (protected?) draft of some sort a possibility? Thincat (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a serious problem, surely this, fully protected, with edit requests allowed on the talk page, would deal with the situation. No? Thincat (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through the history. The key item is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lyndsey_Turner_(2nd_nomination) (which has since been administratively blanked), where it says, The result was Delete OTRS ticket:2014012210016753 applies. [...] There are legal issues. I think we need to just leave it at that. If the OTRS folks stepped in with a deletion and history blanking, there's a good reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted As an uninvolved admin and (lately largely inactive) OTRS agent, I have reviewed the article history and OTRS ticket, and believe that Guy's recommendations are correct. Given that I'm precluded from explaining why I beleive this, I don't expect my opinion to carry much weight, but perhaps it is of at least some value. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both. I accept that. If at all possible a freshly-created protected superstub would be far preferable to a red link. Any gap will become increasingly glaring over the next few months and will in itself attract attention. Thincat (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer on OTRS so can't read the correspondence but from reading the current AN discussion and looking through the article history we appear to have a gap in our BLP policy concerning what to do about living people feeling harassed by the multiple creation of a wikipedia article as part of a sustained on-line campaign by an obsessed fan. Given the maxim that we should do no harm I personally feel that we can live without this article. Alternatively, the only way to manage this and have an article would be to indefinitely protect a super stub but that is by far my second choice as without seeing the OTRS records we have no way to assess the impact of this discussion on a real person. I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. Note that this review should be courtesy blanked once completed Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I should know this given how many years I have hung out here but is DRV noroboted to prevent scraping by google? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  The generated html contains: <meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow" /> so well behaved search won't index the page, though they can follow links within it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per Joe Decker. I agree with Spartaz's comments in their entirety, and in particular I don't see any compelling argument that we shouldn't trust the judgement of those admins who have reviewed the full information on OTRS. 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the subject, with permission:

Whilst I understand and support completely the project of Wikipedia, I am currently in the middle of an attempt to stem a small but significant tide of harassment which has recently become a police matter. As the case is still active, I feel that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, knowing that it might well become a focus for further intimidation. I do hope you can understand my concern in this matter.

Please do the right thing, folks. I have been a victim myself, it is unpleasant (see http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/cloudy/2011/11/29/my-day-in-court/). You have no idea how unpleasant this can be. I urge people to wait until the above situation is resolved. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

question Wouldn;t a protected redirect to the article on the award do as well? DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted for the reasons outlined above. This seems to be one of those cases where WP:IAR is absolutely the right way to go. Is she notable? Yes. Would we ordinarily have an article? Yes. Should we right now? No. That should take nothing away from the nominator, Peripatetic, who's "notable and deserving of reinstatement" argument seems entirely good-faith. The unfortunate part is that we could probably trust an editor like that to create quite a good article to be published at a protected title by an equally good-faith admin. Maybe in the future that's exactly what we should consider. But for now, we should leave this alone. Stalwart111 07:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion because of a legitimate subject request. Even if some sort of protected entity is viable we do not need to have anything in the short term if it might cause distress. (I commented a few times above). Thincat (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per Guy's extract of the conversation with the subject. Hopefully the harassment will come to an end, and when it does it may be appropriate to make an article. Not yet though. Would also have no objection to DGG's redirect suggestion unless anyone can see why that would be a bad idea. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close without result. We can't give this any meaningful scrutiny in the circumstances. We shouldn't pretend that we've considered the matter at all. We haven't: OTRS people have looked at it and said, "Yeah, this is the right choice", and we've simply accepted that. "Endorse" or "Keep deleted" are not the right words to use, because these words imply that DRV has reached a conclusion. Please would the closer say something along the lines of "There is a consensus that OTRS trumps the deletion review process in this case."—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think OTRS can trump a local consensus - which is why we have OFFICE actions - so in this case I'd suggest that the close simply said that in this case the consensus was to trust the admins who had the full facts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per 28bytes and Guy. I agree with Spartaz' suggestion just above as to what the close should say. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the protected stub as I can't see how that could be harmful (until we unprotect it I suppose), but I'll defer to the folks with OTRS access under the assumption that there is some way that protection is insufficient. Does this discussion remind anyone else of the FISA court? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue there would be the associated unprotected talk page which could still be used as a vehicle for harassment. Stalwart111 21:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we aren't already, we can tag the talk page to be no-index so that no one should be able to find the attacks unless they are looking for them. I think that problem is solvable. Again, there may be something else going on here, thus I defer to the folks with OTRS access. Hobit (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that the presence of the {{BLP}} template, either directly or indirectly via {{WPBiography}} (with living=yes) or {{WPBannerShell}} (with BLP=yes) makes the page "noindex." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a bit of a disaster for the Pedia. We cannot apparently prevent our space being used for harassment, and our only choice is censor an entire in-scope article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Put in a fully-protected stub/start page at Lyndsey Turner unless there are compelling OTRS/Legal reasons to leave a red-link. Why? There was insufficient discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (2nd nomination) and WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner (director) to properly qualify as an AFD - the former was closed as "delete OTRS ticket" after less than 24 hours, and the latter was closed as "speedy delete." The first AFD, WP:Articles for deletion/Lyndsey Turner, passed as a clear "keep" a few weeks earler. Therefore, WP:G4 is inappropriate, WP:G5 only applies to the versions prior to 22 January 2014 if there are no salvagable edits. Since it's been decided at the first AFD that the person is notable, the only reason to not have an article about this person at all are legal issues or if the person is later found to be not notable after all. Barring a WMF-imposed WP:LEGAL action, this review should be looking at the OTRS ticket to decide whether to have an article or not. I can't imagine anything in an OTRS ticket that would prevent a short stub or start-class page about this person from being in Wikipedia, but I'll admit that imagination may be eclipsed by reality. In any case, I highly recommend that if an article is re-created, it should be minimal, containing only enough information to clearly demonstrate that WP:Notability exists, along with non-controversial things like a (well-cited) date-of-birth and a broad overview of the person's career, and that it be fully-protected until the sockpuppet gets bored. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion After reading the ticket, in case someone needs another voice to the chorus of "yeah, this is bad". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over some of the prior versions of the article and did not find the compelling reason to keep the article deleted. I think we could maintain an article that meets BIO, NPOV, etc. That being said, we have several editors who read the OTRS ticket and drew the same conclusion (keep delete). That seems to be the strongest argument and my view likely is not as strong since I do not have access to the OTRS ticket information. In short, I defer the views of those who have reviewed the OTRS ticket. Guy or whoever is going to monitor this topic, if the time comes where the subject no longer feels that it would be damaging to the protocol of the investigation to allow a page to be created, please let me know and I would be happy to write the biography article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Customs4U – endorse G11 deletion – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page was speedily deleted under G11 and A7 criteria. The topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources including mainstream media[32] which bears at least minimum notability to discuss in Afd rather than a CSD. For the G11 criteria, this can be checked with {{advert}} and re-written as G11 states If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. I have already contacted the closing admin[33] who advised me DRV[34]. Thank you Talpatra (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - the writing style isn't particularly spamming (a little copyediting may be needed, but not a fundamental rewrite), and the Huffington Post reference (for example) makes the A7 claim laughable on it's face. Wily D 13:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this CNBC news[35] which I used in the article makes the CSD A7 criteria inapplicable.--Talpatra (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion on the grounds of spam. No prejudice against a genuinely independent re-creation from sources. Talpatra, what is your connection with the subject? You have few or no other interests. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the WP:SPA but I do have contributions in other areas[36]. Please, allow me more time to become familiar with all editing guidelines and I will pick a particular job on Wikipedia.--Talpatra (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer the question. What is your connection with the subject? Guy (Help!) 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry as I though this is personal but if the answer is needed for the review then I like porn and I found Customs4U video services noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia so other can read about it. Thanks.Talpatra (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this position is that even if someone else wanted to create an article on the subject, forcing them to duplicate the work that already went into writing the article just because you believe Talpatra may weigh the same as a duck is a waste of everyone's time and effort. Why would I, or anyone else, want to write an article from scratch when one already exists? Wily D 09:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse G11 --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the G11 itself prefers cleanup than deletion for notable organizations.--Talpatra (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a misreading of the criterion. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view" is the operative clause, emphasis mine. The first sentence really clarifies this, G11 only applies when the entire text would need to be more or less completely rewritten. In that case, deleting the article does little harm, since a neutral article will have to be written from scratch in any case. It is my view that that is the case here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for temporarily restoring it. Is it allowed for me to edit the article as per your suggestions so the G11 issue can be resolved? Thanks.Talpatra (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse G11 clearly applies. This is very spammy. Wily you are better off discarding that and starting afresh. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point out the spammy parts this would help me in future to edit Wikipedia. Thanks.Talpatra (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think G11 deletion wasn't out-of-line (though I'd have declined it as fixable), but I'd prefer we userfy on request--it just isn't that hard to fix it up. At the same time, I'm getting tired of reading porn articles at DRV. A) I just don't want to and B) I feel like porn subjects are being judged with a different standard and thus they are showing up here too often. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But confused if you mean we are deleting too many or that too many obviously unsuitable articles are being brought up here? I actually feel that after the monumental effort to reform PORNBIO that far fewer porn bios are making their way here - not doubt because our pro-porn editors know that they get short shrift if they don't have the sources to pass GNG. Happy to continue this on my or your talk if you feel this question is too meta for DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think here is fine--I started it after all. Feel free to move to talk if you feel it's better there.

My sense is that porn-related topics are getting a number of "delete" !votes because they are porn-related and folks feel there is a harm associated with having them that might not apply to other people. That's a reasonable opinion to hold, but one I don't share and one that really isn't policy-based. I could easily be misreading people on this, but we do have two porn-related articles at DRV that meet the GNG but are being deleted for other reasons, both of which I think are a stretch (but I'm an inclusionist, so that shouldn't be too shocking I guess). On the other hand, I'm quite pleased that folks have stopped bringing articles that clearly fail the GNG to DRV on the basis of a PORNBIO. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 March 2014

Blue Morpho Ayahuasca center – Deletion endorsed. Recreation of substantively improved drafts are at editorial discretion (substantively moot, as an improved version is present). – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I guess part of this was my fault for being too busy to pay attention to the AfD and not providing sources when requested, but I'm flabbergasted to see an AfD closed as delete (by an arb no less!) when so many reliable sources on the subject are available. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, but it seems like absolutely no one involved in the AfD actually bothered to use google. Here are a bunch of results from the first few pages of Google that clearly indicate Blue Morpho exceeds the GNG by a pretty massive margin. The solution to an underdeveloped article is not to delete it, most Wikipedia articles started off underdeveloped - it's to source it. Articles that make non-trivial mentions of Blue Morpho Ayahuasca Center (with some differences in naming as is typical) taken from the first five pages of google: Time Magazine talking about it, Peru This Week with a whole article focused on it, Houston Chronicle article primarily focused around Blue Morpho, Nat Geo talking about ayahuasca that talks a lot about Blue Morpho, NPR talking quite a bit about Blue Morpho, The New York Times talking quite a bit about Blue Morpho, and Fox News even talks a bit about Blue Morpho. And that's just from the first five pages of Google, I'm sure there's plenty more past that (or in gbook, gscholar, etc.) It's honestly just kind of disappointing to see an AfD with so many easily available sources closed as delete - it seems like literally not a single participant bothered to open google. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and consider early closure. Nominator is misusing DRV as a platform to attack other participants in the AFD with whom they disagreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind, please explain to me how delete is an appropriate outcome about a business that has at least seven sources, some of very high quality, that appear to easily sail above the GNG. Please note that the coverage I mentioned here was also mentioned in the original AfD, I just didn't see a need to hyperlink it at the time (and missed the later request for me to do so, because I've both been busy and have a rather extensive watchlist) since every article I've linked was found within the first five pages of a google search for "Blue Morpho ayahuasca." There's only two remotely reasonably policy compliant outcomes here: restore the article and relist the AfD for future discussion, or just change the AfD to 'keep,' since that way we'll have to spend less time discussing it. And yes, frankly I am disappointed that it appears that no other participant but myself in the entire AfD bothered to even google the article they were voting about, and no, stating that disappointment doesn't automagically invalidate the very valid points I raised in the DRV. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two people specifically said they could not find sources (one even specifically said they googled), yet you're saying that "not a single participant bothered to open google". Why are you accusing these editors of lying, entirely without evidence? That's a totally unacceptable personal attack. Please refer to the top of this very page, where it says "Deletion Review should not be used... to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed)." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to link you to each explicit Google page that has the hyperlinks I included in this DRV? If others Googled, they didn't Google very carefully. The links were there when I made my comment, and they are still there today. If you're seriously suggesting that this DRV should be closed because of something that falls fall short of NPA when it's abundantly clear Blue Morpho exceeds the GNG by miles, I'm honestly just confused. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but allow recreation - there's nothing wrong with the close, even if there might be something wrong with the result. Admins shouldn't be searching for sources themselves and then super-voting AFDs closed against consensus. Consensus was to delete. An experienced editor tried to find the sources you said you could find but failed and asked if you would provide links. You didn't. That's unfortunate but that's not a failure of the closer. You've provided now what you didn't provided then and you should absolutely be allowed to use those sources to create a new article. Hell, I'd venture to suggest the closing admin would be happy to send a copy of the article to your userspace to facilitate that. Your anger here is understandable but entirely misdirected. Stalwart111 21:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually need Salvio to userify it for me, I can do that myself :) but 3:1 is not consensus to delete, especially with as many 'per noms' as were present. We should not be deleting notable subjects due to low participation at AfD, and now that we have ping functionality (which is pretty hugely useful) there's little reason to not explicitly ping the person who said that the first pages of Google had sources. There were two appropriate outcomes, and delete wasn't one of them: extending the discussion, or pinging the person who claimed to have source (because I had not seen Bearians request.) If we start deleting notable articles because of low participation in AfD, we're headed down a bad path. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, KG. Again, you seem to have a problem with the result rather than the close, and I don't disagree with you in that regard. Strictly speaking, two people (yourself included) didn't specify "keep" or "delete" so the formal !votes run at 3:0 (4:1 if we interpret commentary one way or the other as a !vote). There really isn't any other way to interpret consensus there. Even on weight of argument, you argued there were sources, someone else couldn't find them. Someone else arrived after that and specifically addressed your claim that sources existed. It's unfortunate you were unable to get back to the discussion but, again, that's not the closer's fault. An AFD with 5 participants isn't exactly "low participation" either - it's 4 more people than a PROD. Oh, and "many per noms"... 1? Anyway, not one person here has suggested you shouldn't be allowed allowed to recreate it. So we end up with the right outcome in the end; surely that's the important part. Stalwart111 09:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the only possible option that the closing administrator had given what he had to work with in the AFD. With that said, minimal participation in AFD discussions is an increasingly large problem for admins working in the space, and I suspect there will be more and more discussions like these where issues are not raised within the limited timeframe of a discussion. It is beyond the scope of DRV, but we need to have a discussion as a community about this. In this particular case, given the low level of participation, I think it makes sense to treat it as a soft delete and allow recreation, with a proviso to the recreator that they must include the additional sources into the article and not expect someone else to do it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
As an aside, the instructions for DRV make it quite clear that you're expected to discuss the outcome with the closing admin before taking a discussion here. I don't see anything on Silvio's talk page. Kevin, did you discuss this with Silvio and if you did, what reason did he give for not overturning his own close? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse and speedy close this absurd nomination The only other action the closing admin could have possibly taken, given the discussion that existed, was to relist this for a third week, but was certainly under no obligation to do so. The close was totally correct. And slap @Kevin Gorman: with a WP:TROUT for thinking that his failure to either edit the article to include better sources, or participate in the AfD, in any way justifies this abuse of the deletion review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I didn't participate in the AfD, you may, er, want to reread the AfD. Although I did't provide explicit links to the sources involved, I figured I didn't need to - in the same, if someone AfD'ed dog I wouldn't feel obligated to go find an NPR piece talking about dogs. Consensus does not exist in an AfD where there were only three delete votes and four voters in total. It would've been perfectly fine to extend another week, and it would've perfectly fine for someone to ping me asking to provide said sources (as you've shown here, people can be pinged to particular discussions...) but no AfD should ever be closed as delete (unless it's something like a BLP1e scenario) when so many online sources are so easily available. 3:1 might be consensus to, say grant someone rollback rights.. but it's not consensus to delete an article, let alone where someone has asserted substantial source exist. Especially when two of those three delete votes are essentially "per nom." It's a reat example of almost every participant failing to meet the relatively low bar set forth by WP:BEFORE. And yeah, I could simple recreate the article myself out of process, but wanted to bring attention to the fact that it's problematic that notable articles are being deleted due to low participation at AfD and few people exercising WP:BEFORE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but permit recreation- Based on the discussion, I don't think the closer could have done differently. This is a perfect example of why it's better to provide sources instead of just asserting they exist. But, since the necessary sources have come to light the article can be re-created. Reyk _YO! 03:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation; If there is to be any trouting, is not on the person who brought this here but on our processes which permit deletion without adequate consideration of how they can be avoided. (the admin is not to blame; the community is.) DGG ( talk )
I've salvaged some text from the previous version of the article, and have done a quick read through of the RS'es I linked to ensure every piece of info is sourced to an RS. I haven't had time to put inline citations in or fix the prose (which is still quite iffy,) but AfD is a place to discuss notability, not problems with article quality. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And DRV is a place to discuss the close, not the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and I have an issue with the close, hence the DRV. The nom statement would've been justification to CSD the thing if it was true (but it wasn't.) Beyond that there were two explicit deletes, one of which was twelve words long and one of which was two. Determining consensus is not just counting up which side has more people - hence referring to them as !votes in the first place. Although there's going to be little difference between letting the AfD stand and the article be recreated with sources vs officially overturning the AfD, I brought it up here because, in my view, both (a) no consensus strong enough to kill a mosquito existed, and (b) using AfD as a way to delete articles that really just have content problems is a slippery slope to trend down. In the absence of my comment I could understand closing it as a simple delete, but in its presence, a relist for a week and ping to the person who claimed sources exist seems more than warranted. This style of AfD close also presents concerns for articles written based on older/out of print books (which are still perfectly acceptable sources for many things.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was clear consensus to delete. This isn't a forum to argue the merits of the article, but many of the sources cited seem to only mention the subject of the article in passing, which isn't substantial enough. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, this is not consensus to delete. It is clear that GNG is passed at the point that Kevin says he has found multiple independent reliable sources, therefore the "per nom" !vote should be ignored. LibStar cannot find these sources. Either we resolve the discrepancy (by asking KG for clarification or looking ourselves), or if we insist on closing the AfD we AGF that if one person can find the sources, and the other can't, they exist, therefore GNG is passed. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse close, allow recreation. The original article had no independent sourcing, no specific citations, appeared to be sourced only to the subject's promotional homepage, treated its subject so favorably it had promotional tinges, and had no clear assertion of notability. Sorry to be so blunt, but. . . . That the article had significant BLP content made the case for deletion even stronger. If you don't provide independent reliable sourcing or explain why the subject is notable, it's hard to justify any outcome other than delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Japanese Invasion of Batan Island – restored per request at REFUND – JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The admin who deleted my page was mistaking it for the much more famous Battle of Bataan. Mine was about the invasion of Batan Island. I left a message on their talk page asking about it, and, despite large amounts of activity coming from their page since I posted it, I have not been acknowledged. Also, I'm not sure what an xfd_page is, and can't find anything out about what it is. Despite that, I put proof of my attempt at a conversation with RHaworth there. Thanks, Cnd474747 (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Cnd474747[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2014

AlphaCom – Keep deleted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I will improve on the article to add more references and history, and then reference this article from the "List of Terminal Emulators" page. 121.99.164.96 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list sources you plan on using for this? This was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources and without finding at least a few sources that are independent of the source and provide some meaningful description, you're not going to be able to create an article which can be kept here. If you have questions or doubts about what counts as a reliable source, you could post things here or discuss things on my talk page--I'd be happy to help. Hobit (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention I see of AlphaCom is vendor advertisements TEDickey (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse for now; the time to ask for an article will be when you have content and references to show us. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edited with updates and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.164.96 (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's perhaps possible the revised article merits a new discussion, but it has a 0% chance of an AfD not resulting in deletion as it stands. The only reference which is independent and mentions AlphaCom appears to be this database entry: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2817/ . WilyD 10:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is a blog that looks largely decent that appears to be independent but probably doesn't overcome WP:SPS. keep deleted. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, possibly, but yes, irrelevant to AfD, so it doesn't really change my position that I don't think recreating would be helpful or permanent. WilyD 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are references from established software repositories such as http://download.cnet.com/AlphaCom/3000-2155_4-10018470.html acceptable?
    - Usually not (generally speaking, most of the content on those sites uses descriptions cut/paste from the vendor's documentation, and in that regard does not constitute multiple reviews, etc). TEDickey (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edited the page to include information from and a reference to this pharmaceutical systems vendor based in Utah, US: http://help.fsi.us.com/Alphacom.html

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 March 2014

Semir Osmanagić – Content dispute, not for DRV – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

""I sent an email to wiki editor and he has not replied. i did not post any copyrighted material. I simply edited erroneous data and added two links one for subjects book on amazon and the other to the youtube link to subjects youtube channel. DougWeller also speedily deleted my other entry for a bio of a living person with documentation because i included that i was the person's talent manager and son. How can i get both pages back? they don't seem to fit criteria for speedy deletion by Mr. Weller. Further research found that Mr. Weller is of questionable background and may present a conflict of interest. He is not a geologist nor an archaeologist. I have an archaeology degree from the University of Miami. He also removed references to recent articles to the same page. Seems like a personal attack. Unfounded deletion. Please help investigate this issue. reach me at [email protected]"

Wrong venue, but perhaps I can at least make sense of this. I am guessing that the material you added, at least the material the article history said you added, is captured in this "diff": [37]
- Those additions include the addition of a good bit of text, quotes like ""lectures extensively and promote Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids Project and archaeological tourism". When we look for material using those quotes on the internet, we immediately find that they appear essentially identical to the text at http://www.semirosmanagic.com/en/ . As US law treates any written material as copyrighted until and unless it's disclaimed, that is, unless I've misstated any fact here, a contribution of copyrighted material. Whether that's what you intended or not. Doug Weller was, as near as I can tell, absolutely correct to remove that contribution under our policies and the laws of the United States.
- In any case, you are lodging this particular complaint in the wrong place. Nobody deleted the article on Semir Osmanagić, and we only review procedural errors around entirely deleted articles.
- In general, you will find it easier to communicate with other editors by placing messages on their talk pages. Most Wikipedia editors do not work via email, and in general, the Wikipedia community prefers the accountability that comes along with open communications.
- It's not entirely clear what other pages you want back, if there are deleted files, it would help us to know what you're talking about. We are not mind readers.
- Absoultely, unequivocally, do not simply insult other editors with comments like "questionable background." Please read the essay at WP:AGF, your comments read to me, as someone who is entirely new to this debate, as a personal attack.
- If you have specific complaints about an editor, you may wish to pursue it in other venues, this isn't the right one. First try and work with the editor in question via discussion on their talk page. If that doesn't work, consider WP:DR next.
I hope you find this explanations helpful. Best regards, --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. I indeed deleted the copyright material that was added - I was the second person to delete it. What Vasalloe1 does not mention is that he also deleted quotations by Semir Osmanagić from the article that he apparently didn't like, stating that Semir Osmanagić no longer declares them (a dubious statement and unsourced). He also added in Wikipedia's voice that Semir Osmanagić actually discovered pyramids. He's at 3RR now at that article, having deleted information about the content of Semir Osmanagić's Osmanagic PhD. In addition, no one has deleted anything at the BLP he created about Isabel Gomez-Bassols. I simply added a conflict of interest tag as he says he is her talent manager, and raised the issue at WP:COIN. He has an obvious conflict of interest there. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:GovLinks – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Premature deletion by Plastikspork (see discussion on User_talk:Plastikspork, because simultaneous discussion was occurring on Template:CongLinks. Deleter of GovLinks says to discuss reversal here; proposed deleters of CongLinks have agreed to re-open a discussion. Requesting a Relist while CongLinks discussion is ongoing; I will inform CongLinks participants that GovLinks discussion is separate (i.e. recommend posting comments there too) JesseAlanGordon (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thargor suggests on the CongLinks discussion that I request restoring individual links rather than suggest restoring GovLinks as a whole. That is indeed my intent, but evidently I have not followed the process to do so properly, since that is not what people are commenting on. My understanding of the restoration process is that the template would be restored so that we could have a discussion on each individual link within it -- as was occurring for CongLinks at the time of GovLinks deletion. Please advise me what I am misunderstanding, since clearly I am misunderstanding the process. I would like to discuss restoration for these links in particular, as I discussed on the original CongLinks discussion before GovLinks was deleted, and which several other Wiki editors also discussed: The links are: Ballotpedia; FEC; VoteSmart; OnTheIssues; NYTimes; WashPost; and perhaps a few others. I do not know how to look at GovLinks to see what the actual links were, since it is deleted; the deletion review guidelines state that I should request that here, so I am requesting it -- please advise me if this does not constitute a formal request. My rationale for each of the above links is that they are immensely useful; they are reliable; and they follow all the purposes of Wikipedia. My detailed case for each link are on the CongLinks page; I'd like to re-open a discussion on individual links. I'm happy to post those here if requested, plus the same repeated from other editors on the CongLinks discussion that apply to GovLinks. Sincerely, JesseAlanGordon (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure as nominator for deletion. Consensus was clear, the discussion was open for three weeks, and the template clearly facilitated violation of our external links guideline. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The template violated WP:EL by shoehorning a number of links into articles without subjecting each new one to increasing scrutiny. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Thargor Orlando (it was procedurally valid) and Binksternet (it was a crappy template anyway). --BDD (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Valid close, as Thargor notes. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly valid close within policy and consensus. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and also a {{trout}} to the OP who has stated their intent to flout consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Un-endorse closure~~: The "consensus" for closure of GovLinks ignored a simultaneous discussion on CongLinks, for the same links. Could someone please advise me of the proper procedure to incorporate that discussion here? I see that no one is reading the discussion at CongLinks -- I like to it in my opening arguments -- should I post them all here? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through your !vote, as the nominator your position is already known, you don't get to !vote twice. FWIW overturn would be the opposite of endorse at DRV. I looked at CongLinks and there appears to have been a consensus to remove many, a consensus you seem to be saying you'll ignore and restore the removed stuff because of the DRV here. Your last comment there states "I am proposing to discuss them further once GovLinks is un-deleted.", well I guess if this DRV doesn't result in the undeletion there won't be any further discussion there, presumably you'll drop the stick there? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Belle Knox – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This close was clearly a supervotd and the admin used his opinion instead of reading consensus. Beerest 2 Talk page 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Could an admin restore the page so non-admins can see the current available reporting and sourcing? Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I've posted it off-project here:[38]]. Feel free to remove this note when its back for the DRV.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Milowent, are you still copying deleted pages without attribution to that Blogspot site? I suggested that you review WP:Reusing Wikipedia content back in May 2011. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always make clear they came from wikipedia, no one has ever complained, in 5 years. No one has even resurrected this one for the DRV? I thought this link would be removed by now.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing back to Wikipedia is insufficient when the page history has been deleted. We can't even reuse that content on Wikipedia, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material – as I reminded Tokyogirl79 below. As I wrote previously, you can request page histories at WP:Requests for undeletion to include on your site. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't and no he didn't. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC. There is a real debate if BLP1E applies. Two arguments were made that it does not. The strongest is that she's not a low-profile individual at this point. She's been on The View and Piers Morgan's show on CNN (if I understand correctly) and certainly has not been attempting to have a low profile. The second was that she has sparked a larger debate about a number of issues. There wasn't much from the delete side countering either of those. The second one I'd argue is a reason for having an event article and so mostly irrelevant to this BLP, but the first one is a reasonable argument with significant support and very little in the way of counter arguments. In fact it goes at the heart of BLP1E. I don't see how there can be said to have consensus to delete when there is such strong support for a reasonable policy-based view. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The close decision was based on the policy arguments presented, which favored deleting the article. AfD is not a vote. And regardless of the intensity of the media frenzy, she is still only notable for a single event that has no lasting historical significance. This is exactly the situation that BLP1E is designed to address. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, are you saying that per WP:LOWPROFILE she is a low-profile person? I'd say there is at the least a solid argument that she is not low profile, but I'd like to hear why you disagree. Per WP:BLP1E "...WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals". Hobit (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As WP:LOWPROFILE states: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." Clearly Belle Knox did not seek this attention. She was thrust into the spotlight by her outing and made the decision to defend herself. This may have caused her to be momentarily high profile, but she is back to being low profile at this point. As WP:LOWPROFILE states, "High- and low-profile status can change over time". I don't see any reason to believe that Belle Knox will continue to seek media attention now that this particular event has run its course. Many of the keep votes were arguing that the article should be kept because Belle Knox might turn out to be a prominent activist. To quote one particularly extreme example: "For all we know, she could become the next Gloria Steinem". If and when that happens, a new article can be created. In the meantime, the BLP policy dictates that we wait and see. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd say someone who chooses to show up on major TV show like The View and other media outlets is seeking out such attention, but I suppose it depends on your definition of seeking out. I think the keep !voters, at the least, have a pretty reasonable point and policy doesn't firmly stand for deleting this. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant this is a pretty good argument, and it's possible you can prevail with it, but this looks like it's still at a pretty early stage. For the policy to mean something, we can't say someone is "high profile" the moment they snap back at a reporter and thereby "voluntarily" appear on the air, but at the same time, we can't give someone a lifetime pass as low profile either. But at first glance my overall feeling, skimming a couple of the sources that pop up in a news source, is that we're still more interested in her as an example than as a person, which means, try to work her into an article about something. Wnt (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She has made at least a dozen national media appearance that i count so far, this is in addition to many on web blogs that are likely not to be needed, or count, toward reliable sourcing, as they don't seem to cover new ground. They are interviews with her however. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement (but nothing else): it seems undeniable at this point that BLP1E still applies; she's still in an initial burst of publicity. She is still only interesting (so far as the sources I've seen tell us) as a case of the unofficial policy of harassment and intimidation of pornography performers that undermines their legal rights. It is appropriate for an admin to uphold the clear letter of WP:BLP1E when many voters have made a strong case for it. However, the flip side of this is that nothing in BLP1E prohibits her from being mentioned in articles about the topic. For example, Belle Knox can and probably should be made a redirect to something like Sex workers' rights (while I'm hesitant to blur the legal distinction between that and porn performance in a BLP, there are sources using that term [39]). Most if not all of the article about her (minus some duplications of content imposed by a standalone biography format) can be integrated into a section of that article about the controversy, and appears to be presently available at Deletionpedia.org and Speedydeletion.wikia.com. It's OK to honor the AfD so long as it is not interpreted to interfere with any of that. Wnt (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the BLP1E arguments were sufficiently responded to in the discussion, I have also detailed why none of the three BLP1E points, and all are required, has been met. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. It's true that a closer should make closes based on policy rather than plurality of opinions, but the policy as applied by many delete voters and the closer seems transparently wrong. That's my opinion, of course. I agree with Kaldari that Knox didn't initially seek this attention, but it's pretty clear that once the story broke, that was no longer the case (I'm sorry if that sounds like judgment; she dealt with the controversy proactively, so more power to her). It's also a novel interpretation of policy to call a pornographic actress who has appeared in films from major porn studios a "low-profile individual." (I'm sorry if that sounds like a judgment on the porn industry; it's not meant as such.) If Belle Knox were just a person who had appeared in a leaked sex tape or something, sure, you could call that low profile. A pornographic actress, though? No way. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could be persuaded by this opinion. But can you cite some sources about the films she starred in? I mean, $1600 sounds like a lot of money, but she's not exactly Tom Cruise. If the actors and actresses in the films are notable, we should cover them all. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been established that she doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. See the deletion discussion. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's kind of a red herring. The commenters there were speaking of the "additional criteria" which are supposed to be an alternative to WP:GNG, not a replacement for it. (Which, if it is the deciding factor, would justify an overturn due to incorrect interpretation of policy) Besides, in this case, she's primarily known for the political/social issue rather than for her work, and the issue is only if we have a second event. That said, I'm still a bit skeptical that she really has GNG-worthy sources covering her acting career independently of the recent news flap. (I mean put it this way: "How Do You Like It" and "Lick My Lips" only seem to turn up hits about the news, torrents, and reviews of movies by those names made before she was born) So I'm open, but not convinced, at this point. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think anyone's seriously arguing that she meets PORNBIO, which is probably our silliest notability standard anyway. But GNG is a pretty clear-cut case. Has she been the subject of significant coverage in (multiple) reliable sources independent of her? Absolutely. I'm not sure what you mean by "GNG-worthy sources covering her acting career," however. Editors aren't really arguing for WP:NACTOR either. When you have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, you have GNG regardless of the specific context in which the subject is covered. Does that make sense? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

endorse The nominator said on the ed's tp that they don't agree with the close but no policy based reason to overturn the close has been presented. This was well within discretion and "I don't agree" is empatically not a reason to overturn a close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While the nomination did suck, I think many of the arguments above raise the issue that BLP1E didn't apply here. That the first person to list it at DRV made terrible arguments isn't overly relevant. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree that BLP1E doesn't apply and its within the closers discretion to consider that against the strength of arguments. The question for us is surely did the closing admin have discretion to apply BLP1E given the state of the discussion and was their decision to do so so unreasonable it can't be allowed to stand. I think the answer to that is yes and no. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, I don't feel the discussion could reasonably be closed as anything but a non-consensus. The case centered on WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The subject flies over GNG, and, for those unaware, the subject is a 18/19-year old college student who started doing pornography films in 2013 to pay for her college tuition. She was outed as a pornography film star, but defended her choices, and brought up several related ideas that sparked new, or renewed national conversations:
- Women cast, or caught in, the virgin-whore dichotomy;
- College students doing porn work to pay for tuition is a subject that she has brought new attention to, including the issues of tuition being prohibitively high for students;
- Consumer's of porn, men in particular, condemning those who participate in making the movies, and images, they are themselves consuming.
There are other ideas she was bringing up in her national appearances but these are the main ons I recall without being able to see the article itself. To address BLP1E: many votes were citing BLP1E, but those citing it were directly addressed several times.
BLP1E states that each of three conditions is met:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Reliable sources covered Belle Knox, A) in context of the outing itself, B) that she was a college student paying for tuition with porn work, C) That she was getting death threats for doing pornography, D) That she was unapologetic about her work, and E) Her views on being a sex-positive feminist and pornography star. Some of these were in combination but all of these were death with independently and solely to one subject. So this point is not met.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

As Belle Knox has been, and continues to make online films, available internationally, that alone may not rise her past being low-profile, but we may not have to argue that as she has done, and continues to do national television, and online appearances, discussing many of the issues. This point is also not met

3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

She was the center of the reliable sourcing on the events, and many aspects were very well documented. This point is also not met.

In essence BLP1E concerns were considered and answered, what remained was GNG, which was also met. The remaining concerns were the ongoing issues of not outing Knox's real name, which editors were doing. A WP:BLPN report was opened to specifically find consensus on this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these online films are available to who? I mean, if someone ran a search on one site for girls from Duke University, watched the film and figured out who she is, that's not the same as genuine fame. We wouldn't call everyone with an Encyclopedia Dramatica page about them "high-profile". I suppose I'm still going by an overall sniff test here. Does anyone care where this girl grew up, who her father/brother/sister is? If the biographical details are totally irrelevant for someone we're considering only as the ball in a political game, let's just focus on the game. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The films are available to anyone in the world with an online connection. The distinction should be made that Belle Knox is her chosen stage name, and the one she uses in all her interviews. She was outed as Bell Knox by a male student who either recognized her from films, or in his side of the events, she confided her work secret to him - and he agreed to keep it secret - but in both cases he revealed that Belle Knox porn star is student X. She then started doing interviews but has kept her personal life generally private. Our article avoided any identifying information, if, and when she reveals her real name, that bio information can be included. If anyone seeks that information they won't have our assistance, at least for now, until Knox outs her own name. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is available to anyone in the world with an online connection. Does that make me notable? I don't really think I'm asking for much here, just a "secondary source independent of the subject" that describes a Belle Knox film independently of the present news story. I don't know if you can do that or not. Wnt (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>It's fairly rare anyone cares where BLP subjects grew up etc. More they want to know what this person has done and understand more fully their role in a subject they care about. For example, I might look to see what a previous director has done when he gets selected as a director for some property I care about. In this case, biographical details like where she went to school and how she paid for it are clearly relevant. Learning about how society reacted to her might also be interesting--very much a biographical topic. She passes WP:1E and has a high enough profile she probably passes WP:BLP1E. And certainly there is an interest in who she is, why she made the choices she did in the past and what discussions this outing have prompted in society. Hobit (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep and strongly reprimand closing admin for a blatantly improper close. The outcome of the discussion was obviously keep; the closer effectively acknowledges it himself in his closing statement. Everyking (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's assume better faith. And the votes were split enough that a keep would be unlikely. I think a "non-consensus," which results in the article being kept, was the most likely outcome. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The correct outcome of the discussion was consensus to keep. Both the numbers and the strength of arguments was overwhelmingly in favor of keep. To judge otherwise, to call the matter in favor of a minority viewpoint that was thoroughly rebutted in the discussion—and then most astonishingly of all, to claim that the minority viewpoint is a "consensus"—is simply disgraceful. We allow some limited discretion in closing AfDs, but to allow someone to turn the whole thing upside down goes well beyond that. It's simple fiat—in essence, "the community disagrees with me, but so what; whatever I think is right shall be defined as consensus". Everyking (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closing admin explained exactly what he did; he refused to play "count the votes" and instead used his best judgment to weigh the strength of the policy-based arguments. I object to Beerest 2 (talk · contribs)'s statement that, This close was clearly a supervotd and the admin used his opinion instead of reading consensus.. WP:AGF applies to admins too. It's fair game to disagree with the admin's judgement call, but there's a big distance between I disagree with the judgement call, and it's a supervote. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute the admin using their judgement here, I do think they erred, citing BLP1E which was refuted, and has been spelled out, in the AFD, and here, as poorly applied. BLP1E was simply not met, there are three components, all which must apply, and none do. Overturn to non-consensus without prejudice to the close is all that I think is needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Article should then be moved to something like 2014 Duke student porn controversy as we do all the time for big events like this. Yes, we've been here before, many, manytimes. Controversial event involves sex. An admin swoops in to make the "difficult decision" in the face of a messy debate with no consensus. The chivalric intentions in a delete close are understandable (Ed once tried to save, I mean remove, Linda Tripp!), despite failing to respect the lack of consensus in the discussion (and the irony of "Belle Knox" 's points about feminism). As an aside, I truly believe the subject is actually harmed by deletion in these cases, because searching the subject or her stage name "Belle Knox" will lead the world to sources far worse than the product normally produced by Wikipedia policies. E.g., right now the second google hit for Belle Knox is not us but a Huffpo article titled "I Watched Duke Porn Star Belle Knox Strip At A Gentlemen's Club". No matter the outcome here, let's not delude ourselves into thinking there was a consensus to delete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I think renaming, refocussing the article is a bit premature. I do agree that having a Wikipedia article serves her better than not. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Milowent, I haven't thought about Linda Tripp in years. That was prompted by a talk page thread that argued essentially what I did. Obviously that view wasn't widely shared. ;-) Still, I think you'll find that these are the only two articles in my entire eight-year history that fit this profile, so your attempt to ascribe a pattern to me doesn't exactly work very well. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. I believe the closing admin erred in deleting this article, and I think we have gone far past a BLP1E rationale for deleting this article, as others have noted in the vast amount of media coverage surrounding her. If the article is restored, also consider a possible renaming, per Milowent. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:48, March 20, 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. Repeating the weak arguments for keeping does not strengthen them and is against WP:DRVPURPOSE. The closing admin made a difficult call and explained the reasoning behind it. Suggestions that the closing admin ignored consensus or supervoted are not called for. Lagrange613 05:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions that the arguments for keeping are weak, is not supported by the evidence at hand. BLP1E is the main reason for deleting and that was disputed thoroughly at the discussion and here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're still insisting on having the last word with everyone you disagree with. We'll see whether it's any more effective here. Lagrange 613 05:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. All three conditions of BLP1E have been met. 1) Knox is known for being an "outed" porn star. That's it. That she has gone on a publicity tour to talk about the event is irrelevant. All the coverage is related to that one event. 2) She is likely to remain a low profile individual, i.e. she's probably on minute 14 of her 15 minutes. 3) this event has NO significance. As Langrange pointed out, this is DOGBITESMAN, not MANBITESDOG. College kids have been raising funds by stripping, prostitution, drug dealing and other various forms of "filthy lucre" for as long as there have been colleges. Someone else noted that the 90's tabloids couldn't get enough of these types of stories. Unless something else happens (get out your crystal balls) this story has smaller legs than Herve Villechaize.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The ed17 clearly combed through the various arguments and found the strongest ones pointed to delete. If Knox demonstrates lasting notability in the future then the article can be built again, from whatever future sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I'm still somewhat undecided about all of this, although I lean more towards it surpassing one event at this point in time. However in the spirit of compromise, I would say that it would probably be a good idea to allow an interested party to userfy the data and work on it until more coverage has been received. However as userspace copies do show up in Google search results, I'd probably recommend renaming it something else like "userspace draft 2014" to avoid any vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also {{noindex}}. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't aware that existed- I'll have to remember that! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a very useful template. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had someone request a copy, so there's a userspace copy out there and I've added that tag to it. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history-less copy at User:Ktr101/Untitled currently violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia, Reusing deleted material and Userfication. Usual DRV practice is to restore in place, blank, and tag with {{TempUndelete}}. Userfication can wait until the DRV concludes. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Kaldari. The ed17 based his call on Lagrange613's argument. As a matter of boomerang, I think Everyking deserves to be led to the proverbial yardarm for principle's-sake. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Yes, AfDs are not voter counts and sometimes the numbers won't carry the day. If a BLP1E-related article cannot be argued for with anything other than BUBUTBUTSOURCES, then those arguments are weighted less. This is solidly within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What should we use to judge besides reliable sources? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - You would have to show that this person is notable for something other than the event in question. Piece of advice; don't be the guy who responds to every DRV weigh-in that is in opposition to your own p.o.v.; it never ends well. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a long and contentious discussion and nobody would have faulted Ed to cop out with a "no consensus". Instead, they carefully weighed the arguments and decided that policy favored deletion. This is within admin discretion and, as pointed out above by Binksternet, if ever at some point in the more distant future it turns out that this person does have lasting notability (something impossible to say just yet), recreating a bio will be possible. --Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This is the kind of closing analysis we want administrators to perform in controversial cases. I happen to believe that according full policy weight to all aspects of BLP1E is inappropriate, and greater deference should be given to community sentiment in many cases -- but community consensus holds otherwise, and we don't make exceptions to BLP-related policies on a case-by-case basis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apology I didn't realize the deletion discussion shouldn't be rehashed here. I'll try and do better the next time around. Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have favoured no consensus but I think delete was within discretion. My understanding of WP:BLP1E is that articles may be deleted even if the subject is high profile but only when that publicity concerns a "single event". The word "otherwise" is important in the second condition of BLP1E. In this case the individual is clearly high profile for the event but is arguably low profile otherwise. It depends on what is regarded as the event. So, a legitimate argument on both sides. Thincat (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the outcome was within the bounds of reasonable discretion and we shouldn't be "re-trying" matters because a different outcome might also have been reasonable. Thincat is right, though I would argue the subject is zero-profile without this one event. But those are matters for AFD. The question here is whether the closer got it right and I think he did. Stalwart111 23:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD is {{notavote}}. BLP1E is applicable (one event does not mean one day) and the closure was appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Arg. This is clearly going to stay deleted and I was tempted to let your comment go. But that was a heck of a strawman there. There are questions of being low-profile and what exactly makes a chain of events a single event. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Ordinarily, I would say that a discussion such as this should have been closed as "no consensus". However, this case is exceptional in terms of the BLP considerations presented. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, proper application of admin discretion in the spirit of BLP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing statement shows no supervote, and the reasons advanced here to claim that BLP1E does not apply are not convincing—come back in a year and recreate the article if the event is still notable. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, a rational, correct (and brave) close, especially given the sensitive BLP nature of the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse - per Tarc and others; Ed was well within normal discretion to make the delete call. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No consensus. I !voted delete at the AfD , but re-reading the article and the sources convinces me I was wrong. This is not tabloid material, nor ephemeral news. The has been continuing fairly intensive coverage, and based on what's in the article, it will probably continue. Predicting the future is difficult, but I think this will continue to be cited as a classic instances of several things: the impossibility of internet privacy, the intolerance exhibited towards sex workers, higher education costs, and things radiating from there. I do not thing BLP applies: the basic principle is do not harm, and the continuing publicity makes further harm from WP quite unlikely. the subject may have originally not wanted publicity, but once it has happened, it appears from the sources that in self-defense, she's continuing to make use of it. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that having a Wikipedia article is unlikely to do additional harm in the short term, we should remember that Wikipedia articles have a very long-term impact. Having an article on Wikipedia means that everything you do for the rest of your life is open to vigorous public scrutiny for inclusion in your "permanent record". For people who want to live a private life, that can be a nightmare. Once you are deemed "notable", pretty much anything is fair game: arrests, employment termination, blurry flickr photos with free licenses, etc. Obviously Belle Knox isn't seeking the private life right now, but we should still give her that option once this has blown over, especially since her current notoriety was due to outing. Even if it can be argued that BLP doesn't require deleting this article, I still think the spirit of the BLP policy clearly supports deletion in this case. Regardless, this is all just rehashing the deletion debate. The real issue to be determined here is did the closer exercise proper discretion or did they overturn consensus based on their own opinion. Kaldari (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because AfD was closed properly. This DRV is degenerating into AfD round 2. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Although I don't necessarily agree with the result of the discussion, Ed made the right call here and I endorse his decision. That said, there is still the possibility that down the road, she will gain more importance, so we can revisit the topic when that time comes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Judging from the news cycle pretty much moving far from the subject since it was brought to AfD as I thought it would, closure based on BLP1E was appropriate. If we went by voter count, every insufferable AfD with canvassed SPA's voting "do not delete" would pass, but that's not how the process works. Nate • (chatter) 00:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and ought not become one. Classic BLP1E article. Collect (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I !voted to defer deletion for a while, but this seems to be a wholly reasonable closure. VQuakr (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
overturn While she doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO she passes WP:GNG by a wide margin. Possibly the article should be renamed to be an WP:EVENT (something about The outing of Belle Knox perhaps) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the issue was BLP1E do you have any comment on that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz The BLP1E issue would be handled by a rename to the event. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - BLP1E was misapplied since a pornographic actress is not a low profile individual due to the nature of her profession. Her behavior after the outing is also not of a low profile individual given that she's made the media rounds and continues to use her fame to promote her career. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Favorite betrayal criterion – Specifically citing softdelete means there is no strong consensus to delete and this should be treated like a prod so I have undeleted. If anyone has the energy for round 7 go ahead but for the love of god can you stop at that??? – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was created in its "current" form, with references, after its 2nd deletion (4th nomination). After that, it has been nominated twice for deletion by somebody with a clear secondary motive, in that a voting system which fails this criterion bears his name. In those two deletion discussions, there have been 3 people who !voted to delete (including the nominator), 3 to keep, and 3 to merge/redirect (with various targets). Yet in the latter of the two, only the nominator had an opinion, so he prevailed. It seems to me that this process is flawed; when someone doesn't like a decision, can they prevail by simply re-nominating, with no new arguments or evidence, until the people who disagree don't notice, and they are unopposed? I'd be happy to rerun this discussion openly, with (for instance) a notice on Talk:Voting system so that any editors, on any side, who are interested in this general topic can comment; but it seems to me that, pending the result of that broader discussion, the "stealth" 6th deletion nomination should not stand. Homunq (࿓) 02:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prior to coming here, I attempted to contact the closing admin, but it appears he's taking a wikibreak. Homunq (࿓) 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted all the editors who participated in the last two deletion discussions to comment here. (Including myself, derp.) I still believe that someone else should put a notice on Talk:Voting system but I won't do so myself to avoid the appearance of canvassing. Homunq (࿓) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "favorite betrayal criterion" has never caught on. There are only 4 papers from 3 different authors in Google Scholar (one thesis and three self-published papers that have never been accepted for publication somewhere else). There is not a single hit in Google Books. Markus Schulze 05:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Homunq's strongest point is that the deletion process should be one in which the stronger arguments prevail. It should not be one in which you win by exhausting the other side's voters. Homunq alleges that in this case, all that's happened is the article has been persistently renominated until the keep side failed to show up. If that's so, then although I wouldn't take any issue with Mark Arsten's close, the deletion process has simply failed in this case. We should restore the disputed content for the time being, until there's a proper consensus about it among informed editors.
Homunq's allegation that MarkusSchulze is not an uninvolved editor does not seem relevant to me. Mr Schulze appears to pass all of our relevant tests (WP:COI and so forth) and be editing perfectly legitimately, and WP:INVOLVED is only concerned with administrative actions. I think that the best evidence we have is that Mr Schulze is a subject matter expert. We need those in our encyclopaedia and we should most certainly not deter them from editing in their field of expertise! I think that one of the findings this DRV should make is that MarkusSchulze is completely free to nominate material for deletion.
DRV does need to give more consideration to the question of how we handle content that nobody's shown up to discuss. As productive editors leave the project and are not replaced, this situation will get more and more common. To treat unopposed nominations as PRODS is the current fashion but it cannot, in my view, be correct. If nobody's participating then the subject article may be of no interest, but it may also be that it's complicated and technical and genuinely does need more input.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Homunq here again. I'm not exactly sure what this discussion is supposed to focus on — process, or substance? In any case, here's my opinions on the various issues:

Though I have no doubt at all that Mark Arsten acted in good faith, I would hope that in the future, AfD closers would consider all arguments made for or against the article in a recognizably similar form, not just the arguments in the latest nomination. I feel that if that had been the standard in this case, the outcome of the fifth nomination would have been unchanged in the sixth, as Schulze brought nothing new to the table in the latter.
As for Schulze: I think that re-nominating the article, without any new arguments, was a bit "rude"/ "cheesy"/ "gauche", but I can't point to any policy it violated, and I am willing to assume it was done in good faith. Thus, as S. Marshall seems to suggest above, I'd like to see this kind of re-nomination discouraged in the future; but I wouldn't reprimand Schulze in this case. He is without doubt a subject matter expert. In fact, the community of (English-speaking) experts on these matters is pretty small, and I'd bet he could guess my own real name in one or at most two guesses (though I'd ask him not to). In other words: I myself am in a very similar position as he is, with longstanding involvement with the community of experts, and a personal position on certain contentious issues. If that would make his participation illegitimate, the same would go for me.
As for the specifics of this case: I recognize that, to someone not versed in the field, it's a bit borderline. If I look for things that are unquestionably WP:RS, I get... a thesis, a passing mention in Poundstone's book "Gaming the Vote", a number of mentions in articles and videos that have a clear advocacy agenda, and a few more marginal matters like that. However, as someone who participates in both the academic and amateur discussions of this field, I can absolutely attest that the FBC ranks alongside "LNH" as one of the most-discussed criteria. Though of course anything by Condorcet or Arrow is better-attested, I'm sure you would get more google hits for "favorite betrayal criterion" than for, as an example, any of the voting criteria invented by Saari, despite the fact that Saari is an acknowledged academic expert in the field. In particular, the FBC easily passes what I think should be a basic test for something that should be included in Wikipedia: it's jargon that you'd be expected to know in more than one of the voting methods sub-communities. (That is: it's not a term that's used only by advocates for a particular voting system, but rather something that's discussed in terms of both its pros and contras by various groups on various sides.) Homunq (࿓) 11:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond to Homunq's question: I'm not exactly sure what this discussion is supposed to focus on — process, or substance?
The primary purpose of Deletion Review is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. In normal circumstances, by convention process-focused commentary may receive additional weight in the close, and closers will often reason that DRV is not a place to re-argue issues that were fully explored in the AfD.
However, these are just conventions, and exceptions do apply. DRV is not totally confined to process-focused commentary. If a consensus forms that we should do a particular thing because it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to do so, then that's the thing that DRV will do. And the nature of DRV is that it's often the more complicated and difficult things that make it here, so closers need to be quite sensitive to that possiblity. Thus discussion participants are given quite wide latitude to raise any content-related issue that's of concern to them and to discuss it in full. (They're not given much latitude to make allegations about user conduct, though: those belong elsewhere.) There have been occasions when DRV has set aside the rule against re-arguing the AfD and overturned an AfD to the opposite result, on the basis that the AfD participants were simply wrong.
In this case I think it will be sufficient to focus on the process.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. In terms of process, here's what I'd suggest/support:

Renomination of an article for deletion by somebody who participated in the previous AfD, and most especially by the previous nominator, should be discouraged. Obviously there would be exceptions if new evidence came to light, especially around WP:BLP; but in general, I'd expect new evidence (new references) to be more likely to argue in favor of keeping, not deletion. This should not mean that a new editor, who had not participated in the prior discussion, could not re-nominate, especially if they had a novel argument.
If an article is re-nominated, all arguments from past AfDs which apply to recognizably-similar versions of the article should be given equal weight as arguments in the present AfD.
Since this is new policy I'm proposing, I mean no serious criticism of Mark Arsten's or Markus Schulze's actions here; however, I think the policy I suggest would lead to overturning the deletion of this article.

Homunq (࿓) 13:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue this belongs at WP:REFUND as the closer specifically sited it as a soft delete. I do think the above discussion is productive, but I don't see how there can be doubt the material should be undeleted per policy. This could also be viewed as a speedy undelete--same thing. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I tried there, and they emphatically sent me here. Homunq (࿓) 17:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have checked. Ideally S Marshall's idea of taking a new look at soft deletion should happen, but we should also get that issue sorted out. Per soft delete, this should be treated like a PROD and restored on request. Like PRODs, there can be reasons to not restore, but I can't imagine those apply here (BLP issue etc.) Hobit (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: whatever happens here, I'd like it to be linked to from the latest (6th) AfD discussion. Homunq (࿓) 18:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2014

17 March 2014

16 March 2014

15 March 2014

14 March 2014

Jews and Communism – No consensus, meaning that the "no consensus" closure is maintained by default. About 17 editors, going by the bolded labels, would endorse the closure, and somewhat fewer - 14 by my count - would prefer to overturn it in favor of deletion. Numerically, that's no consensus to overturn the closure, so let's examine the arguments to determine whether we need to discount a sufficient number of "endorse" arguments or give the "overturn" arguments more weight. I find that this is not the case, but rather the opposite is. Many arguments for overturning the closure (but only a few for endorsing it) are based on the merits of the article - in other words, they are repeating arguments from the AfD, which is not what deletion review is for. Whether the article is unredeemably deficient (which it may well be) is a question better suited to be determined at AfD, rather than here. This means that we're stuck with a no consensus outcome of this DRV discussion. A relisting would not be appropriate because the AfD discussion and closure was relatively thorough. As such, the closure is maintained by default. However, as in all cases of "no consensus" outcomes, the article can be renominated for deletion after some time if its problems can't be editorially remedied. – Sandstein 12:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I request deletion of this article.

The vote for deletion was 22 in favor, three to merge into other articles, and 14 to keep, The administrator closed the discussion with "no consensus". The administrator erred in dismissing the consensus that the lack of neutrality in the article was irreparable and erred in saying no one could say the topic was not notable. In fact sources were provided that no comprehensive study of the subject had ever been undertaken. The administrator also said that there was no consensus that the article was a POV fork, although many editors said it was, and few disagreed.

TFD (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way this article was originally constructed in tone and purpose it read, and essentially still does read, more like an "indictment" and "blame sheet" that would make the Jew-hating Jew Watch proud, rather than as a well-balanced presentation of a factual why and how things came to be. Having been one of those that suggested this article be merged into History of Communism, in light of the recent surprising "no consensus" decision I have recently tried to edit certain sections for a better historical balance and perspective, more objectivity, and adherence to core WP:NPOV. It is not an easy job! That being said, User TFD has a very valid point: It is unfair and very strange that with 22 votes in favor of deletion, three to merge (meaning also opposing the retention of the article) versus 14 keeps, therefore the keeps are outnumbered almost two to one, that that is somehow "no consensus". Simply based on the recent vote the article should have been deleted as User TFD requests. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WP:DELPRO#Consensus explains that "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." The close was a model of such careful consideration and the finding that there was no consensus seems quite reasonable. The complaint that achieving a simple majority of !votes for deletion did not result in deletion seems to misunderstand the nature of consensus which requires broad agreement. Andrew (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence has been furnished that the "delete" arguments were not firmly based on well-established policies and guidelines. Andrew Davidson correctly points out that a simple vote count is not the proper method for decision. But when the Ivotes in favor of deletion are so overwhelming, it is incumbent on the closer to explain why so many good faith votes, seemingly based on policies and guidelines, have been discounted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TFD "The administrator said that there was no consensus that the article was a POV fork, although many editors said it was, and few disagreed." Actually, many disagreed - including yourself, TFD. Since The Four Deuces insists on pushing this line of argument, I will point out again he has removed the subject from the Jewish Bolshevism article on grounds that it is a separate topic. To quote exactly: [40]

"The fact that some Jews became Communists and the conspiracy theory are two separate topics." --TFD, 11 September 2013

He then posted an RfC to show that the Jewish Bolshevism article is indeed solely about the conspiracy theory [41]. Having succeeded in deleting the sourced info through said argument, he nominated the new article for deletion - on grounds that its a POVFORK of Jewish Bolshevism. As incredible as that may sound. Having failed that, he now proceeds to bother people here on WP:DELREV. Presumably if the article had indeed been deleted on grounds of being a FORK, he would then claim its a "separate topic" once more (or whatever might serve to keep it out).

This is little more than WP:WIKILAWYERING to push a distinct agenda, namely deleting the text from Wikipedia. The arguments, from the alleged POVFORK (rendered nonsensical by TFD's own consensus [42]), on to the WP:BATHWATER claims that the article is "unsalvageable" - are spurious and biased. Most "delete" votes were hysterical WP:IDONTLIKEIT exclamations instigated by TFD's own inflammatory presentation of the article as "attempting to justify a Nazi conspiracy theory" (which imo constitutes a particularly heinous personal attack as well, against a long-time contributor). As regards claims that "no comprehensive study of the subject had ever been undertaken", they are manifestly untrue. Though I suppose one could theoretically extend the definition of "comprehensive study" far enough to delete this entire project.

In short, RoySmith perceived the situation very accurately: the basic deletion rationale was manifestly absurd (with a contradicting consensus established by the nominator himself), and the rest of the arguments amount to a hill of beans as far as our policy is concerned. -- Director (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand what is TFD trying to do. RoySmith's rational went above and beyond the call of duty explaining exactly his logic for closing it as no consensus. At this point I honestly believe this is a very WP:POINTY attempt to get rid of this article at all cost (even after he himself formed an RFC explicitly eliminating that content from the article; now claiming it's a fork?). --CyberXRef^☎ 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. He's directly contradicting his own position and the talkpage consensus he pushed through. He refuses even to offer some sort of explanation. Not that I myself believe there's any mystery as to what is being attempted. Its just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He thinks the research is "antisemitic", views Producer is some kind of Nazi (which is ridiculous), and wants his work deleted from the project by any available means, policy be damned. -- Director (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What TFD said or did is irrelevant for this discussion. Otherwise the article should be delete because TFD proposed so.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its relevant: TFD established a consensus on the Jewish Bolshevism article to the effect that the relevant data is not part of its scope. Hence the article is manifestly not a FORK. Its also relevant as it demonstrates bad faith. Much like its relevant that you, Antid, are merely doing your usual business of following me around and opposing whatever I say as a sort of petty revenge for opposing you on previous discussions.. -- Director (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Antidiskriminator: Actually, it absolutely does in this case. The AfD nominator initiated this RFC where a consensus was reached that this article's material is out of scope in there (as the Jewish Bolshevism deals with the conspiracy theory only); it's therefore by definition no longer a fork. --CyberXRef^☎ 16:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Just because this is "out of scope in there" does not mean it is a notable topic for another article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate argument, however, it's not a fork. Which was the single biggest argument. --CyberXRef^☎ 22:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment which makes it easy to see that KEEP position was based on two fallacies:

Affirming a disjunct: Almost all editors who proclaimed that this article is not a POVFORK explained their position with: "a consensus was reached that this article's material is out of scope in" Jewish Bolshevism. So what? Almost all POVFORKs are out of scope of the Jewish Bolshevism but that does not make them less POVFORKish. To make matters worse, based on this fallacious position, closer of the AfD discussion mistakenly concluded that there was no consensus about POVFORKish nature of this article.
False dilemma: Based on irrelevant and wrong conclusion about the lack of POVFORKish nature of this article's material closer concluded that it should not be deleted. Again wrong conclusion. Hundreds of articles are deleted every day although they are not POVFORKs.

The situation here is simple. Regardless if this article's material is POVFORK or not (and I agree with those editors who believe it is) this article should be deleted simply because nobody presented any proof for any meaningful connection between particular ethnicity and Communism.

Conclusion: No meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism = No article on Foo ethnicity and communism. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As others and myself have pointed out to you: we are discussing the claim of POVFORK here. You are voicing a completely separate argument. Do you understand this? An argument which is just silly, and isn't even worth discussing - considering the article is packed with sources explicitly describing a "meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism". Because of that, practically noone supports your argument, not even TFD (though he could contradict himself again, who can say..). -- Director (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you know that what you wrote here is incorrect. I can't see other reason for you to write this comment other than to sidetrack discussion in your desired outcome in the absence of valid arguments.

The subject of discussion is not POVFORK position here, but decision of closer to keep article. POVFORK was only one of arguments.
More than one editor based their delete !votes not on POVFORK position but on other arguments including argument I presented.
"Sources say so!" No. No source support "meaningful connection between Foo ethnicity and Communism". Presenting sources about Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism or Foo ethnicity and Communism does not mean there is any meaningful connection between them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh go away Antidiskriminator... how many times must people explain to you that these posts are about the POVFORK claim?! Do you understand that? Seriously, do you? Your own personal "impressions" and assessments re the sources are a separate topic. They do not concern me at all, not least because I'm certain you didn't read a word of any of the refs. Do please stop cluttering the page with red herrings. -- Director (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although you wrote 108 comments (for now) at AfD and this page (75+33) solely based on False dilemma and Affirming a disjunct fallacies vast majority of editors support deletion. It is time for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVFORK is continuously being put forward by the nominator as the primary reasoning for deletion. I am responding to that. I do not claim that an article that isn't a POVFORK must be kept solely by virtue of not being a POVFORK. That would be a false dichotomy. I am saying the article isn't a POVFORK. Period. That is not a false dichotomy. Either you do not understand what's being said, or you don't understand what a false dichotomy is. You also don't understand what WP:CARCASS is about, since you're quoting it about an active discussion.

It does appear you've discovered logical fallacies and find them interesting, but please try to read a few examples before claiming others use them. -- Director (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The closing rationale provides a good summary of the "discussion" and no consensus looks entirely appropriate to me. Many thanks to Roy for taking this on. Thincat (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cullen. GabrielF (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In a moment I'm going to argue that we should overturn to delete. But before I do, I want applaud Roy Smith for that excellent close. We have far too many sysops who, faced with that debate, would have used some quite forced reasoning to get to a definite conclusion. Roy Smith avoided this and did exactly what sysops are supposed to do. His closing statement is very good. It shows a thoughtful and impartial analysis of the debate. With the vast majority of articles, I would have been wholeheartedly endorsing it. (I've had occasion to analyse a few of Roy Smith's closes at DRV lately and I'm starting to find that he stands quite high in my esteem.)
But. The history of anti-semitism is one of those fraught topic areas that Wikipedia's consensus-seeking processes don't handle very well. What can arise in a fraught topic area is a "first-mover advantage", where one faction, clique or splinter group, genuinely believing themselves to be in the right, writes something that suits them, and then an opposing faction, clique or splinter group that also genuinely believe themselves to be in the right can never quite muster enough voting accounts to remove it. This is not a good way to write an encyclopaedia, leading as it does to different pages, paragraphs or sentences belonging to, and being defended by, opposing sides in an environment where no consensus is possible and the best we can manage is a long-term standoff. In such cases it is, very occasionally, in the encyclopaedia's best interests to eliminate the first mover advantage, and to reach a decision rather than a compromise. How can we do that? I think that DRV is the right mechanism because (as it would amaze most people to learn) Wikipedia's most robust content management tool is our deletion process. DRV supervises this process so as far as content is concerned, DRV is the "highest court in the land".
As the "highest court" we're normally very procedure-focused here----we often take the view that it matters that we get to the right result, but it also matters that we get there in the correct way. And I'm often a procedure-focused man, and I often want to ensure that nothing is decided until interested parties have had every opportunity to be heard. I'm not a deletionist, and I'm not a particularly pro-Jewish man either----I'm British, and I'm alert enough to British history to have quite a lot of sympathy for Palestine.
But contrary to the view I often take, in this particular case I think it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to delete this irretrievably antisemitic and POV content. It should not be visible in the history. Of course, as Roy Smith correctly says in his close, Wikipedia should cover the subject of Jews and Communism, but this particular content needs to be nuked.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe "this particular content needs to be nuked", then please present a proper argument for that. As I'm sure you're well aware, we generally don't "nuke" reliably-sourced, notable information from this project. And I must say your position falls well withing the topic of WP:ZEAL:

"So an article is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It had loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article. Well, if this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problems. That's what the talk page is for."

You are certainly correct in pointing out cliques often form on articles and control content. Deletion however, is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card. Its not an alternative to consensus-building on the talkpage. If someone wishes to challenge the data in the article, they should do it properly - not make spurious and self-contradictory claims to try and get the thing deleted as a sort of scam. And that's what this is, really. A kind of "scam". The point of which is probably for TFD to regain the same advantage you speak of, one that he wields and has wielded with considerable effectiveness on the JB article. If he deletes, he can continue to suppress this entire topic by such means. That's really what this is about: apparently he'd rather delete whole articles than challenge standing data. No doubt that would be easier, but permit me to say - it would not be right. -- Director (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to DRV, Direktor, and thanks for the benefit of your opinion. I've considered it and I remain firmly of the view that this content is irretrievably POV and should not remain in the history. You are of course at liberty to differ.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, its a "free encyclopedia". Nevertheless, I thought it pertinent to point out the above does not represent a policy-relevant deletion rationale. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy is, of course, NPOV. Given the way this discussion is trending, I would also accept (as a poor second best) "keep the title but completely rewrite the content from scratch" per DGG. I suspect that in practice this would be a rather more difficult task than most rewrites, involving as it would negotiations over each and every sentence with vocal editors who have strong opinions.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood you were referring to NPOV, which is why I pointed out POV is not a valid reason for deletion. Even were we all unanimously agreed that the article is antisemitic trash (which we are not), as long as the topic itself is notable - its not a reason to delete the entire article. I am also continuously astounded at how openly folks push for deletion on grounds that discussing the article's issues would be "too much work". Yes. Negotiations. Negotiate; that's what the talkpage is for. Its a difficult subject, but one that seems universally acknowledged as notable and relevant. Though I'm not at all certain there will be some sort of talkpage armageddon: it seems to me there isn't a single user that opposes a rewrite of the article. Producer included. -- Director (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are times when negotiation is appropriate. This isn't one. As any mathematician or scientist will tell you, sometimes any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is another kind of wrong answer. This is one of those clear-cut cases. If Wikipedia was a democracy then that debate would have been a landslide "delete" and I see no reason why the "keep" side should be allowed to mire the whole thing in endless talk page negotiation. Keeping this material is wrong, and compromising on keeping some of this material is wrong. Compromising on keeping it in the history is wrong. This really is so antisemitic and so POV that blowing it up and starting again really is the simplest and best answer. Do feel free to add another post below so as to get the last word, though.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall. (I'm not trying to get the "last word", I'm really not.) In the above terms, my reply is that its not been shown there's a "wrong answer". It does not appear any of the sources presented by Producer are unreliable or biased in any way, in spite of pretty rigorous scrutiny, nor that he has presented them inaccurately. How is deleting reliably sourced, accurate information the "right answer"? If you wish to challenge data - the place for that discussion is the talkpage. Though, imo, all the article requires, really, is some context.

If Wikipedia were a democracy, I'd quit. And as for "endless talkpage discussion", that's entirely unavoidable on this topic. In this, and any other hypothetical incarnation. -- Director (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you haven't fully understood what I've said, because you're arguing about points I didn't make. I have said that Wikipedia should cover the subject of Jews and Communism. I have not challenged Producer's sources, nor anyone else's. Therefore, supporting Producer's sources doesn't refute what I've said. I have said that this particular iteration of the article should be deleted on the basis that the content is a massive NPOV violation that's neither useful nor fit for publication. Your counterargument has been that this is fixable and we don't delete content that's fixable. I'm afraid that's inaccurate, because yes, in some situations, we do. Content can be so racist, sexist, or (as in this case) antisemitic that we simply obliterate it and start again. Shall I cite examples, or are you prepared to accept that this does genuinely happen?—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall It does seem I didn't quite grasp your position. You seem to hold that text, perfectly fine in terms of sourcing, can and should be deleted from this project by users simply stating an opinion that "its massive POV!"? That's pretty much the "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" of an experienced Wikipedian. I would argue that an article that presents reliable sources accurately and in an unbiased manner, and does not selectively represent the position of scholarship - can not be POV by definition, as defined by WP:YESPOV. In light of that, could you please clarify how exactly is the text biased, per the relevant policy? And so biased as not merely warranting tagging and repair - but immediate, wholesale deletion, before it even has a chance to be fixed? -- Director (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Direktor: given how vocal you are about this subject, and the sheer quantity of comments you've made over the course of the AfD and this DRV, I really don't think I can explain my position in a way that you would be prepared to accept. We're dealing with a matter of opinion, on which yours is different from mine, and a question of editorial judgment, on which we disagree. I think further discussion will be unproductive and I suggest we leave it at that.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, as bulk of the deletion votes were literally "I don't like it", "not encyclopedic", and "you're just being antisemitic". The Israeli-Palestine, Jewish-Muslim topic area is fraught with ugliness, bad faith, underhanded tactics, and one of the characteristics of BOTH sides of the POV-Warrior camp is that neither like articles that are critical of their side. It is neither antisemitic nor Islamophobic for the encyclopedia to host articles that may be critical of Jewish and Islamic issues, as long as the critical eye is reliably sourced and adheres to NPOV. The other potentially legitimate argument made was that it was a pov fork of Jewish Bolshevism, but it was pointed out in the AfD that that article's focus is more on the conspiracy theory angle, while this is historical/fact-based. I do not see that argument refuted. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ick. This reads like a hit piece and feels more than a bit like it has WP:SYNTH issues. I think a good article could (and should) exist here and much of the data in the article could be used to do so. But they way it is written feels quite wrong. If there was a clean way to get it to a NPOV that would be great, but given the numbers of editors involved, it seems unlikely. I've got to give a weak endorse here. The closer explained things well and their reading of the discussion is certainly reasonable. That said, I'd have endorsed deletion per WP:NUKE and the !vote count. I think that would have been a better outcome. I do hope that clueful folks can put down the sticks and improve this article so that it provides context (both before and after the revolution). Hobit (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the administrator was right to close the discussion and accurately summed up the deletion debate that had taken place to reach the decision of "no consensus". 23 editor (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm shouldn't it be Endorse not Oppose? The instructions say "Endorse the original closing decision"? --CyberXRef^☎ 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad. 23 editor (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I !voted for keep in the discussion, though with several qualifications that almost made it mean delete and rewrite. The one thing from the entire discussion which was really clear, was that there was no consensus about what to do with the article. There was not consensus to do what I wanted to do, nor was there consensus for anything else. The only thing I can suggest is that those interested should try to rewrite it, and in a month or two if some people are still dissatisfied, they can bring another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I think the whole premise of the article is silly, and makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be. The motives behind some of the editors that have expanded the article are clearly antisemitic. Had I been involved, I'd have had no hesitation in asking for deletion. With that said, given what he had to work with, I think that User:RoySmith made an excellent call in a difficult situation. There is quite clearly no agreement on whether the article is in fact a POV fork, and as the answer to such a question is inherently subjective, a clear consensus is the only real way to proceed. Not having a clear consensus, the discussion should have been closed as no consensus, as it was. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse basically per Lankiveil. I would have opined for deletion had I seen the AFD but I didn't. Both sides fundamentally disagreed with the arguments being put forward by the other to the point where no clear consensus was reached. RoySmith did what he could with what he had been provided by the community. Nothing in his close suggested the article can't be nominated again. Stalwart111 05:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Per 'S Marshall' and 'Cullen' - the article is still a non-encyclopedic essay attack and antisemitic piece and the votes that said this in the previous discussion cannot be dismissed. The article's very title is misleading and inappropriate. With as many as 24 votes in favor of deleting the article, an additional two in favor of merging it, and only 12 in favor of keeping it, it's an outrage that "no consensus" was reached. Why would the opinion of one admin be counted as 13 votes of other informed and reliable editors? Even though editors provided different reasons to delete the article, they're all valid, have equal weight to those opposing them, and need to be counted fairly. A disgrace has been done, and I urge other participants of the previous discussion to share their opinions as well, since serious injustice happened here. Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) Dougweller (talk · contribs) Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) Altenmann (talk · contribs) Binksternet (talk · contribs) Steeletrap (talk · contribs)Marokwitz (talk · contribs) USchick (talk · contribs) Hot Stop (talk · contribs) AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) Topdiggie (talk · contribs) Evildoer187 (talk · contribs) AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) Dralwik (talk · contribs) GHcool (talk · contribs) Anonimu (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) Galassi (talk · contribs). -Shalom11111 (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, because, AFD is explicitly not a vote and for good reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn to delete - As explained by multiple editors: "reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism". That is why I !voted for deletion of this article. Not because it is maybe a POV fork. Whether there is a consensus about this article is POV fork or not is irrelevant. As explained by another editor above, this article "makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'd be surprised if I didn't see Antidiskriminator arrive to oppose anything I say whenever I happen to join a discussion :) -- Director (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Your accusation is unjustified. Take for example this comment "I support DIREKTOR's basic position here." (diff) I wrote in another discussion that you also participated. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Overturn to delete Pretty bald faced anti-Semitism, no doubt created by some (Personal attack removed).--Atlantictire (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Deletion review are for discussions about the closer, not if you are in disagreement with the article. (WP:DRVPURPOSE)--CyberXRef^☎ 16:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely uncalled for, but I can't say I'm surprised as this the same type of incivility I faced at the AfD. Frustrations at failing to come up with policy backed arguments is no excuse to personally attack other users. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Consensus says, "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." Editors and administrators who close discussions are not like judges who decide which arguments they like or dislike." However the closing administrator said that there was only one valid reason for deletion - POVFORK which he considered not proved. Effectively he has chosen to base his decision on his own interpretation of policy for the reasons for deletion rather than rely on the "predominant number of responsible Wikipedians." I would point out that closing a discussion is not like being a judge where one may decide which arguments one likes or does not like, but is supposed to be supported by the discussion. TFD (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its kind of obvious you're trying to misquote WP:CLOSE, by manufacturing a policy conflict that wasn't there. The conflict did not center around a dispute over the prevalence of one policy over another. There is no other policy "that some people thought is controlling". Its just your POVFORK nomination, and those who disagreed. Now you're just latching on to a non-applicable quote.

As regards said POVFORK, perhaps the closing admin noticed the fact that there is an explicit consensus on Jewish Bolshevism for keeping this topic outside the scope. A notion which you yourself brought forth, supported strongly against opposition, and finally pushed through, deleting the text from the article.

You've still not accounted for your conduct in any way. Which is it, TFD? Does the topic belong in Jewish Bolshevism or doesn't it? But if you're challenging the text itself, I suggest you do so in the proper manner - on the talkpage of the article. -- Director (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wiith TFD here. Closing administrator based their closing statement on false dilemma:

False dilemma: Either "this article is POV fork" OR "it should not be deleted".

POV fork position was not the only argument for deletion. There was another, I believe much more important, position supported by multiple editors who explained that "reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism". This article "makes about as much sense as Red haired people and Communism or Left handed people and Terrorism would be".

The real dilemma here is actually: Either "reliable sources support a meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism" OR "this article should be deleted".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, please read this carefully: the deletion rationale is POVFORK. My post is (obviously) there to address that rationale, which is still being brought forward and pressed repeatedly. In that regard, the standing consensus on Talk:Jewish Bolshevism is relevant. Not whatever it is you wrote up there. Now, I know you're just here to harass me as per usual, but could you please do so without clogging the talkpage with vain attempts at basic logic? -- Director (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Rationale presented to support deletion was not only POVFORK. As explained by multiple editors: "reliable sources do not support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism". That is why I !voted for deletion of this article. Not because it is maybe a POV fork. No doubt that you know that. I think I gave a fairly clear explanation of my position and I don't have anything to add to it now. You are of course free to disagree. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "my post is there to address the POVFORK" do you find difficult to understand? -- Director (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Andrew and Tarc. IZAK and Shalom11111 are wasting no time unscrupulously calling on preferred editors with selective delsorting [43] and pinging of users who voted delete in the previous AfD. [44] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Producer: Using the word "unscrupulously" about me is not nice! It is a violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, it degrades you and WP. I know that pushing this topic gives you and Director great joy. So be it. I am trying to work with you to edit the article so that it becomes a good WP:NPOV article and not a pathetic diatribe and screed. That being said, I have placed a notice of only one WP:DELSORT page on this page, period, and that is not "unscrupulous", while you and Director think its kosher to put such notices on eight pages at a shot, both on this page and at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism. FYI: There is a direct connection between any topic that has to do with Jews/Judaism and WP:DELJEW, while you and Director placed such notices on multiple (8) countries' WP:DELSORT pages. By your logic, if placing one notification on a single WP:DELSORT page is "unscrupulous" then doing so on 8 such tangential pages is "unscrupulous x 8"! Cool it 'cause as I said previously, you and Director have long ago entered into the WP:SPIDERMAN zone and that is not a good thing for either of you. Today is Purim so Happy Purim to all! IZAK (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Antidiskriminator. The fact that over 70% of the votes said delete but it was dismissed is shocking. What are deletion proposals for then?Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still more shocking is the above math. You're off by a couple dozen percentiles. Or maybe they just misinformed you in the WP:CANVASS? -- Director (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the numbers at the top of this page are correct, it was 56% delete, 8% merge, and 36% keep. Your math doesn't seem to strong either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went into medicine to try and avoid math :). But no, see: he said "over 70%". -- Director (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would've been funny if this whole thing wasn't so sad. The numbers speak for themselves, and injustice was done here. Like 'Antidiskriminato' and others, I want to see reliable sources that support any meaningful connection between Jewish ethnicity and Communism, and I'm dropping this case now. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers?? What's "sad" is that you still don't understand there is no WP:VOTING on this project.

As for your bold demand, its nothing but an arbitrary phrase: you can always say "they don't". What does "meaningful" mean? Sources quoted in the article state outright that there is significant disproportionate representation. Is that "meaningful"? If I were you, I wouldn't try copying "Antidiskriminato" too much. -- Director (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as per Cullen328 and AndyTheGrump. Had I known of it, I would have registered a delete vote. Aside from the incompetence, it's antisemitic. 'Communism' = Jews was a meme all over Eastern Europe (one of the reasons the British Army opposed Zionism is that the equation 'Jews'/'Zionists' = Communism meant for them that Zionism would have opened a door to Communism and destabilize British Imperial interests in the ME). It's rather like the moronic equation of finance with Jews, which I vaguely recall some previous editor trying to slip in here. Jews were prominent in numerous professions, arts and social activities, which doesn't mean we should have Jews and Medicine, Jews and The Atomic Bomb, Jews and Psychoanalysis, Jews and the American novel. Set this precedent and you set up Jews and Wall Street, Jews and money-running, Jews and the mafia -there's no end to it. It's unbelievable how this ever got into wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. In the XfD, as here, I read strong opinions and no consensus. I recommend Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, with particular attention to a comprehensive next nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I voted to delete, as did an overwhelming majority of those who commented at AFD. I really don't understand why the closing admin felt there was no consensus. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guys. But considering all the WP:CANVASSING going on.. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Director (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you wrote "Sorry, guys."? Is it because you acknowledge that this deletion sorting pages are not appropriate? It's a legitimate question, I have no intentions to start another heated debate here. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Sorry guys" and what followed can only be interpreted as a clear violation of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. IZAK (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That's the only way it can be interpreted? WP:AGF? One could easily interpret it as he is suspecting some form of canvassing took place and the "sorry guys" was a general response to that before he posted it on a number of deletion sorting articles in order to bring people who were not previously involved and could judge the situation with a fresh pair of eyes. --CyberXRef^☎ 05:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CyberXRef and thanks for the joke. Let's see now, Direktor can himself violate WP:AGF when he has no provable grounds to prove that, as you state by "suspecting some form of canvassing took place" and then "respond" to that "suspicion" (!) by making a move that he preambles with "Sorry you guys" indicating that he knows he is going to upset other users and may be in violation of WP:CANVASS himself. This is just a hot potato topic that will always attract attention and it is simply paranoid for anyone to think that it gets attention because there is canvassing going on. Very poor and illogical defense on your part and a clear violation of WP:LAWYERING. Let's all stick to arguing the merits and demerits of this serious topic and the admin's rationale/s and decision/s, or lack thereof, please. IZAK (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: It is time to respect the intelligent decision made by RoySmith. Article seems much healthier than it was before. No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Shalom11111, linked people who supported the deletion. While ignoring those who have opposed the deletion. And alleged Direktor/Producer to be sock puppets. Noteswork (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor 'Galassi' made an accusation of sock puppetry as you falsely claim, and I left a message on the main Jews and Communism article talk page asking "Everyone who participated in that deletion discussion" to participate in this current deletion review discussion. Not only "people who supported the deletion". Also, of those 12 users who voted to keep the article, a few had already commented on this deletion review discussion before I even wrote that comment. I selected them quickly without much attention and as you can see even "picked" at least one editor who voted to keep the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are not stupid, Shalom11111. -- Director (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Noteswork: Your statement that: "No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Shalom11111, linked people who supported the deletion" is most uncalled for, and by accusing 27 serious and sincere users, in this case a two to one majority, who voted to either delete or merge the article, of being "uncivilized" puts you in violation of WP:AGF x 27 and WP:CIVIL x 27, many of them long-time WP editors and including some admins that you are cynically labeling "uncivilized", and you therefore owe each of them an apology. If you wish to resort to citing WP policies and guidelines then do so, but you have shamelessly clearly failed to avoid WP:NPA in this instance. IZAK (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think that there is some error in terms of understanding, especially of Shalom11111 and IZAK. Shalom11111 denies alleging other user to be sock puppet, IZAK is trying to make up that I've called everyone uncivilized. My message was about Shalom11111, not anyone else. Noteswork (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noteworks, which part of your original statement that "No offense, but I condemn the uncivilized behavior of Shalom11111, linked people who supported the deletion" says that I am "making up" anything? What does it mean to be "linked" with Shalom11111? (or is that a new kind of conspiracy theory?) and which "people" are they? Speaking for myself I have nothing to do with Shalom11111, but you on the other hand want to lump everyone who may have voted like him or said something that supports arguments he makes as a negative thing, feel free to disagree in a civilized way, but after all name-calling others by saying they are "uncivilized" could get a user blocked for violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. IZAK (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and in case of overturn Weak keep because of these sources that can be found in the article. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deák, István (2004). "Jews and Communism: The Hungarian Case". In Frankel, Jonathan (ed.). Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 38–61. ISBN 9780195182248. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Schatz, Jaff (2004). "Jews and the Communist Movement in Interwar Poland". In Frankel, Jonathan (ed.). Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 13–37. ISBN 9780195182248. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Gutiérrez, Alberto (4 November 2003). Hilton, Ronald (ed.). "Russia: Jews and Communism". Stanford University. World Association for International Studies.

Your opinion has merit, but we're not really here to re-argue the deletion discussion; this is to review whether the closing admin acted properly, i.e. endorse it over overturn it. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This vote should be dismissed, right? If so, please delete it. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. I corrected my option. Pluto2012 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. You have got to be fucking kidding me. A terrible article from the first paragraph, a dog's breakfast of an AFD debate, and a wishy-washy, handwringing disgraceful non-decision of a close. Kill it with fire. --Calton | Talk 16:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wow. One sentence, so many insults. Your total lack of WP:Civility is worthy of absolutely no reply. As a side note, if you've bothered to read the most recent version of the article you'll notice that some people have been working hard to fix the POV issue. --CyberXRef^☎ 06:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I voted to delete the shitty article but I can see how the closer weighed the various points and arrived at a decision. Now that the article is being kept, it should be eviscerated and fixed. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. RoySmith had to make a difficult call, and I commend him for stepping up to do it. However, I strongly disagree with his decision here, and unfortunately I think he may have overstepped his role slightly. He lists arguments made both for deleting and keeping. But then for reasons that are not clear to me, he dismisses three of the reasons to delete, and instead decides that "what this really comes down to, is this a POV fork of Jewish Bolshevism". Unfortunately, this seems to be a judgement call, rather than an objective assessment of editors' consensus. My second reason for voting for overturn is that he says that he "doesn't see a clear enough consensus." To me, when an article is voted on at a 2 - 1 ratio for deletion, that is about as clear a consensus a controversial AfD will ever see. In this case, a finding of no consensus is essentially a permanent keep vote, because there will always be vigorous debate from those in favour of keeping. I also will point out that the reason much of the AfD discussion seemingly lacked consensus was the outsized number of postings and arguments from two editors who had heavily contributed to the article in question, which is against WP:COI and thus should be an important consideration in whether or not there indeed was consensus. mikeman67 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now I'm Overturn and delete, but RoySmith, I think it would be helpful to have some clarification on how this article is neither a POV fork nor an endorsement of the view that there is something specifically Jewish about Communism. Communist movements in Africa, China, India and elsewhere of course suggest otherwise, and there are already numerous country-specific articles on Communism. Once one ceases to omit discussion of the German Peasants' War or The Paris Commune the notion that revolutionary communism is a Russian/Jewish innovation loses credibility. Aside from selectively-chosen statistics on Communist communities with high percentages of Jews, this article doesn't contain information that can’t be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. It might be useful to re-write this as an objective examination of the Communism-is-a-Jewish-movement canard, but ultimately I think S Marshall is correct: that process would definitely not be pretty. Something that touches on Communism and Judaism and Conspiracy Theories/Antisemitism, with two committed camps of editors whose motives are diametrically opposed, probably can’t be revised without endless arguing and complaints to admins. If the only new information this article contributes are stats selectively chosen to advance what to so many is a tendentious, deeply offensive POV, I agree that it’s probably a bad idea to put people through this.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Sometimes Admins make mistakes. The consensus to delete was overwhelming, and to claim that there was "no consensus" is clearly a mistake. USchick (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - deleting the article or re-listing it for deletion are the only logical solutions. If the previous discussion had 2/3 in favor of deleting the article but ended with "no consensus", then a tie here shouldn't be regarded as no consensus which would mean keeping the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you can presumably more effectively votestack another time? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You allow yourself to say this but then accuse me (and others) of personal attacks, wow. Shalom11111 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was clearly no consensus to delete, just like there was no consensus to keep. There's no consensus here about whether there was a consensus there. What a surprise. DRV is not designed to be "AFD, Take 2" but there are plenty of people who seem to want to re-make the arguments they made there or !vote directly for deleting or keeping the article. The focus here should be on whether or not the admin accurately determined consensus. People seem to be getting hung up on the "default to keep" part of a no consensus close. But equally important is the "no prejudice against re-nomination" part. All "no consensus" means is that in this particular instance, community consensus wasn't strong enough for a clear outcome either way. For subjects like this, that's a good thing. Just f**king nominate it again. Seriously. Stalwart111 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. The article is not salvageable.--Galassi (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And for the 400th million time, this is not a second AfD and any repeated argument about the article simply doesn't belong here. --CyberXRef^☎ 22:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Having read the AfD carefully, I believe the close was appropriate and certainly within discretion. (I have waited to respond to this discussion for quite some time as I'm enormously sympathetic to S Marshall's views, above, they are an first-class example of IAR. However, to the extent that we are going to establish protections to mitigage the first mover advantage, I believe that we require broader discussion of the reach of any such policy change, or for that to evolve out of a series of AfD results. I realize this sounds awfully procedure-bound, and perhaps it is too much so, I don't know, but I think this example highlights a weakness in our policies and guidelines, and I would rather address that weakness broadly.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would, for the record, allow immediate renomination following closure here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a quite a number of people here who, whilst completely endorsing this AFD close, also wish the AFD discussion had gone differently. However, I think it would be a bad mistake for DRV to take on a role of IAR deletion (or restoration). DRV is to examine procedure, although we may apply some common sense and decide some AFD arguments were unreasonable. Are you suggesting we try and find some new way of invoking superior editorial judgement? – I fear that a rabble might turn up to contribute to such a judgement just as sometimes happens at AFD or DRV. However, and as you also suggest, at present the forum for deleting any unsatisfactory articles still lingering after AFDs and DRVs is yet another AFD. Maybe suggest something at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)? Thincat (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not suggesting that DRV be considered a "better editorial judgment", I agree with your concerns about that. My other thoughts have little to do with DRV per se, and, well, let's not derail this already badly derailed discussion. I'll give my views appropriate air in good time, I promise! --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I originally voted keep (and cleanup) on anti-censorship grounds and because I have argued that over-representation of any group in any area where there are lots of WP:RS on the effects may be a good reason to keep an article. But seeing a few good arguments, and fearing yet more harassment on the topic if I didn't change my "vote", I changed to "keep info and merge elsewhere." Looking at article since it was cleaned up, it clearly is getting into my "may be a good reason to keep" category. (And if it weren't for past and ongoing harassment on a similar article, leading even to a block of one harassing editor, I might be tempted to improve it myself.)

Also, I think in "counting numbers" we really have to look at the influence of Systemic bias here. While the discussion was listed in Politics-related deletion and 8 nation-related deletion lists, I am sure we had far more participation from those who saw it at Wikproject Jewish history and Judaism-related deletion discussions and were highly motivated to opine to delete it for emotional rather than rational reasons. Thus it's fair to say no consensus and fair to give it another couple months before people try to delete it again. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User: Izak changing name without discussion/consensus on talk page vs. policy (not to mention this deletion review) and he should revert it, as I wrote on talk page. (FYI, I have no opinion on that name, not having seen alternatives.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed there is an existing category Category:Jewish communism created Nov. 2012 and I don't see a drive to delete that or the several articles in the category. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I agree with the Admin's rationale in deciding on no consensus. This article is tricky because I think the article has a lot of useful and interesting information that totally belongs on Wikipedia, but in its current form it really doesn't seem to provide a balanced views of Jews and Communism. Regardless, I still agree with the admin. Orser67 (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of the data for this article is taken from a book called The Jewish Century. From the few reviews I’ve read, it’s a quite complex examination of how Jews both shaped and were shaped by the socio-political forces of “modernity.” What’s happened here is that events from the book have been selectively chosen, completely stripped of their historical context and reduced to an ahistorical pile of raw numbers of Jews.

It’s easy to plunder a source for data to use for tendentious ends. Getting the historical context right—especially with a subject this controversial—is extraordinarily difficult. Since this article was originally written without expertise or even genuine curiosity in the history of Jews and Communism, it should never have been created in the first place. It definitely should have been deleted. But now that it’s here, I would say the editors who elected not to delete or overtune the "no consensus" decision have an ethical obligation to fix it. It’s a tremendous task, and it’s not fair to make a malicious mess somebody else’s problem. None us who voted to delete it f'ing wants to do this *shoots self.*--Atlantictire (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I say to that is is "Welcome to Web 2.0, to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is what you've bought into in this project, that everything can be edited at anytime by virtually anyone. The flip-side of the Web 2.0 miracle is that is the possibility that articles will not be updated or watched. Obscure WP:BLPs contain over-hyped, salacious bits that are never corrected, data for athletes career statistics are not up-to-date, and articles like this remain in a neglected and un-maintained state forever. You cannot compel people to watch pages or to edit content, it's just not how it works here. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, everybody has the expertise and time to transform a gross distortion of Jewish history into an even-handed treatment of Jews and Communism? Hey man, baseball stats, malicious stereotypes: same dif.--18:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what you signed up for; just because anyone can edit doesn't mean that anyone will maintain it once it is out there. Enjoy your Wikipedia experience. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh is it? Complacent whatevs about tendentious distortions of Jewish history? Maybe that's what you signed up for, so thanks for being honest.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Deletion Review, not My Personal Ideological Opinion Review, sorry. Tarc (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Personal Ideological Opinion is that it serves no encyclopedic purpose to turn a complex history into a misleading pile of cherry-picked facts, regardless of whatever religion or ethnicity the group being misrepresented happens to be. That is my Personal Ideology here. Full disclosure. Anything else?--Atlantictire (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (Keep). In 2009 I voted to delete Communist genocide by an argument similar to Antidiskriminator's up above. But I don't think that applies here because this article isn't just a list of Jews who were communists. It's meaningful as a topic in and of itself. I generally avoid even mildly controversial topics lately, but in this case I want my opinion to be weighed. —Soap— 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is currently a proposal (by me) for renaming and broadening this article, please see Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish_history.--Pharos (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also a new one Talk:Jews_and_Communism#Proposed_move:_Jews_in_the_history_of_Communism. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2014

12 March 2014

Beer Auction Game – Listed at AfD. Opinions are divided between overturning this speedy deletion because it doesn't meet the scope requirements of WP:CSD#A7, and endorsing the deletion because the article would have no chance to be kept at AfD. Given that we have no consensus, the prudent thing to do is to send the article to AfD and find out. – Sandstein 11:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe administrator is not applying properly wiki guidelines. The discussion on his talk page show this in my eyes.

Overview of Discussion on NawlinWiki (talk):

Permit me to disagree on the Speedy Deletion of the Beer Auction Game. You refer to A7, which explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7. I therefore would like to state that you used A7 incorrectly for Speedy Deletion of a University content output. Also I disagree to Speedy Deletion which would not have been the proper way anyway in this context.

Therefore please reinstateBmwtroll (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I could have also tagged it under category a11, something recently made up. Before I reinstate for what would almost certainly be a deletion at AFD, do you have any reliable independent sources that show the notability of this game? NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

without being to harsh, I understand what you say, but a quick excuse that you did not pay attention to the educational institution issue in A7 would have been a nice sign as well. Now you bring A11 and later in your sentence you talk about proven sources about notability. A11 has nothing to do with notability but only significance or importance (clearly either of them). Notability is explicitly put at a higher level. Why are you bringing in levels personally which are not in the guidelines? When you look at Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and read 1-6 it contradicts what you are writing. Therefore please reinstate Bmwtroll (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not without sources other than the school that created this game. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A7 does not apply and A11 does not require sources. Nevertheless two separate sources have been included from the very beginning at the bottom. Permit me to say, I still believe this is acting outside the boundaries of Wiki rules. Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up Bmwtroll (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first source is a blog (yours?) that describes the game. The second is the university's own site. Neither satisfies WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The first Website is a cooperate website of a 500 Mio. Euro company with an editorial desk where such topics are regularly published. And yes, certainly I have access to this company. But it passes the editorial desk. Nevertheless this does not justify that you apply A7 and A11 incorrectly in my eyes. So please give a final yes or no to my original request - Please reinstate and still you can propose it for deletion in the proper way where I believe your arguments do not hold up - so I can place my complaint through the alternative channels Bmwtroll (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not going to reinstate. Try Wikipedia:Deletion review. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bmwtroll (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a downloadable game (thus subject to category a7, regarding web content), created in 2014. The two sources cited were a blog entry that the article author apparently wrote (see above) and the website of the university that developed the game. There's no assertion of notability per a7, and no citation of independent or reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 does not apply to educational institutions and its output. It is an academic topic similar to Beer distribution game by the MIT. So the argument of application of A7 does not hold. Additionally, although not required the university should hold as a either independent or reliable source. Additionally the publication on the second source PowerGuru with editorial desk of a large multi-national should also be evaluated. For the rest, consider original discussion because: all is said, but not by all Bmwtroll (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A7 doesn't apply to educational institutions, but nothing says it can't apply to its output. That a game was written at a school doesn't protect it from an A7. If there was a reasonable claim of notability, things would be different. But I've not seen any in the discussions. So Endorse speedy Hobit (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct and I was clearly mistaken. This doesn't qualify under A7--I was reading it way too broadly. So list at AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bmwtroll, there's no real chance of you getting what you want from DRV unless you can show us an independent source.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and List at AfD. If an A7/A11 or several other non-offensive CSD deletions are contested, it means someone wants a discussion, so list at AfD and let the discussion happen in the appropriate place. A7/A11 does not mean that the article MUST be speedily deleted. There is no shame in the deleting admin listing the article for discussion. Reversing a reasonable speedy deletion so that an occasional contributor can benefit from a discussion is not a mark against the deleting admin. Clearly, Mmwtroll wants, and will get his discussion. Here is the wrong place. AfD is the right place. NawlinWiki, please just agreeably list contests at AfD so that we don't have to host this here. No, on the face of things, it will not pass AfD, but at AfD we can discuss the requirements for sources, while at DRV we find ourselves non-productively discussing the nuances of CSD criteria. Bmwtroll needs to learn about source requirements, not CSD nuance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Bmwtroll (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List at AFD. I think that the speedy deletion was valid according to the specific WP:CSD#A7 criterion. However, this turns out to not be one of "the most obvious cases" for deletion[45] – we have an appeal and also a selective merge (or, conceivably, adequate referencing) isn't out of the question here. I agree with SmokeyJoe that it would be far better to discuss this at AFD rather than discuss here whether it should be discussed. We need to change the formal process for handling non-offensive appeals against the speedy deletion of non-offensive articles. Thincat (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm generally in favor of overturning speedy deletions on reasonable requests and sending them to AfD. But A) the speedy (as you note) was applied correctly and B) there isn't even the beginning of a valid argument that this meets inclusion guidelines. If either A or B weren't true, I'd favor listing, but if we relist for any objection, it feels like our speedy and prod process are basically the same thing. Hobit (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am really at a loss with what I read because in the end, I want do things right and not provoke - and I often think that my English is not that bad :) When I read WP:CSD#A7 it says: 'It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines. If the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied. Often what seems non-notable to a new page patroller is shown to be notable in a deletion discussion.' Since there is a referral to the University Page (www.fau.de) and a online magazine with editorial desk (www.powerguru.org) first I believe it is credible (obviously not invented) and carries two separate sources. Therefore I assumed - obviously wrongly but I still want to understand - that speedy deletion is wrong. And a normal AFD would have also given time either to improve the article with more sources and/or content or have at least a proper discussion before establishing facts. This is not a student's work project but a professors research work. Bmwtroll (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think technically the article (here) had no claim to importance although "The learning effect ... is considerable" comes close and a credible claim could easily have been added. However, and more importantly, this material was not suitable as a stand-alone article because it lacks multiple independent reliable sources (but that is not for CSD or DRV). Perhaps if you ask the deleting admin to WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts he would agree and then you could try to strengthen it. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse games which are purely digital can qualify for A7, and in any case it has absolutely no chance at AFD, so sending it there would just be a week-long waste of editors' time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a week long waste of editors' time, not well suited to educating Bmwtroll. It should have been immediately listed at AfD, where it would much less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Since when is the purpose of DRV (or AFD) about educating users? It looks like NawlinWiki told Bmwtroll the basics of why it was deleted, Bmwtroll simply disagreed. I'm not sure why you think AFD would "less likely to be a waste of Bmwtroll's time"--I've seen editors waste many hours expanding articles that were obviously destined for deletion, when a speedy and a link to WP:42 would have been much kinder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List at AfD or move to WP:Drafts. Depending on how you squint while reading WP:CSD, you could make an argument that A11 applies, so I'm not going to go so far as to argue that the speedy deletion was wrong. I'm pretty sure this will be a snow delete on AfD, but that's a better outcome than, as has been pointed out, spending a week here arguing the nuances of WP:CSD (and if it really does get closed as snow, it'll be faster too). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added later: modifying my opinion to include draft, per @Bmwtroll:. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that proposal is the easiest solution: 'WP:Userfy the article or move it to WP:Drafts' until the independent sources are up. With a speedy deletion there is no chance to react to anything Bmwtroll (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7. As this doesn't seem to stand a chance at AfD, it would be a waste of time to list it there. If the article creator thinks reliable sources that verify notability, then I would have no problem with userfication, as long as the article creator understands that substantial improvement is needed before the article can be restored to mainspace. --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - find a couple sources, and I or someone else in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can restore it to your userspace to be made suitable for the mainspace, at which point it can be moved back (and no longer A7-able). Without 'em, AfD is just going to delete so, so a trip there is pointless. Wily D 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid A7 (as web content), but without any great enthusiasm allow it to a list at AFD. It has virtually no chance of surviving that, and in a week we'll all be back where we started, which leads me to conclude it's pure process wonkery. But if it makes the article creator or any other editors feel happy I don't see why not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse as per WP:IAR I think the case has been made that best practice here is not to enforce the speedy deletion. However, I can't get past the username here, and the highly competent application of Wiki policy with no edits to explain the mastery. Unscintillating (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: yes, I know already that the combination for my user name was not smart. When I first registered I did not actually know for what Troll is used in the Internet and BMW is my interest. My knowledge of Wiki comes from my writing and use mainly in the German Wiki (see my contribution list since 2009 ). If I consider something valuable in the German Wiki then sometimes I create an English version. Bmwtroll (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Admin's actions were valid. "explicitly excludes educational institutions when using A7" means exactly that: Institutions. We are not writing articles for every dorm of every school and for every MS thesis. Notability is not inherited.- Altenmann >t 05:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, list at AFD. The OP's argument is utter nonsense, but this "game" is downloadable software, not web content,and therefore expressly not eligible for A7 deletion. It may be "purely digital", but so are e-books and Itunes-exclusive releases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has it right, the "game" is in a downloadable compressed archive containing of a number of files I don't usually think of executable (PNG, PSD, DOCX, PDF, XLS, etc.), but a narrow construction of CSD critieria probably excludes it, and if it didn't, it wouldn't exclude eBooks etc. either. Considering this "not web content" leaves us with a more consistent policy. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2014

10 March 2014

9 March 2014

Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm – "Delete" closure overturned, discussion relisted. – Sandstein 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The discussion resulted in one merge (i.e. keep) !vote and one comment leaning towards keep. Despite the complete absence of support for deletion, the closing admin declared consensus to delete this page and five related pages. I asked the admin to reconsider on his or her talk page. The admin declined to reverse the decision, explaining that "I had a bit of trouble seeing just what, exactly, was merge-able." This statement, and the admin's other disputed closes, seem to indicate a misunderstanding of his or her role in the AfD process. Pburka (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...orrrr, you coulda just gone for uncontroversial undeletion like I suggested and endorsed, but needless bureaucracy works, too, if that's your thing. Commenters should note that, again, as I said on my talk page, I had trouble seeing how the content could be merged, no changes to meet WP:V/WP:N were made to the article despite that final comment on the AfD, and I was more than happy with it being undeleted due to WP:QUORUM issues. Relisting a clearly stale AfD didn't seem appropriate, however. As for my role in the AfD process, I should note that all of my closes are coming from heavily-backlogged WP:OLD AfDs, several of which are tough or DRV-ripe closes. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 03:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Nobody agreed with the proposal and so there was no consensus to delete. Per the emphatic guidance of WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn although this hardly needs to be said. The consensus was not delete. Also, the closer seems to seriously misunderstand WP:UNDELETE (which can't be used after AFD deletion). This type of close is very unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to wikilawyer, but WP:UNDELETE: "or in 'articles for deletion' debates with little or no participation other than the nominator," and WP:QUORUM (part of WP:DELPRO): "If a nomination has received no comments...(or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment...[which includes]...closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal." I'm just saying I genuinely believe that my actions were in-line with policy as I understand it, but I've done a {{TempUndelete}} on Embassy of Tanzania, Stockholm to help show why I had difficulty seeing the content to merge, given the merge target, but had and still have obviously no problem with just flat out undeleting it (as I said before). --slakr^\ talk / 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have a problem with changing the delete to soft delete? Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if anybody would simply read what I've said numerous times both here and on my talk page that's exactly what was intended. No worries; you're not alone: apparently nobody else did, either, which is sort of ironic given both the situation, the venue, and the allegations being made. --slakr^\ talk / 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I created this article(s) as a stub and believe that it can be expanded in the future. Ali Fazal (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Insufficient debate to form a consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have recently tried to resolve a similar situation with slakr on his talk page and was treated dismissively. I have reviewed slakr's AfD history using Snottywong's tools. I see no record that slakr participates in AfDs. There is a concern here that he is force-closing AfDs when he should be adding !votes. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to speedy keep NPASR I notified slakr on 28 February that for "a WP:NOQUORUM...a hard delete was an incorrect closure", so he can't say he wasn't aware of how to interpret the guideline. WP:NOQUORUM limits deletions to soft delete, which are the equivalent of WP:PROD. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am amending my bolded summary based on review of the AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence whatsoever of a consensus to delete in that discussion. In the absence of a community consensus, Slakr has exercised his own judgment. I'm sure this was done in perfectly good faith, but at DRV we use the word "supervote" to refer to that outcome.
The community is generally very sensitive to use of the "delete" tool. Sysops are entrusted with the power to delete, on condition that it's used only in certain rigidly-defined circumstances:- either in accordance with one of the criteria for speedy deletion, or when there's been an expired PROD, or where there's a community consensus to delete. I'm afraid that none of those conditions obtained, so DRV doesn't really have any discretion in the matter. We've pretty much got to overturn. In my view the correct close would have been "no consensus to delete".—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. No consensus to delete present, although one might develop if given enough time. ✄ (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, you can't say there's consensus to do a thing when nobody actually agrees to do that thing! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn. Reasonable admin discretion here could cover "keep", "no consensus" or "merge". Closing the AfD backlogs is no excuse for a close that doesn't reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, close not indicidative of actual discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2014

Indiggo – No Consensus. After discounting a few "endorse" comments which were really attempts to re-argue the AfD (mostly from IPs), this comes down to pretty close to 50/50 between Overturn and Endorse. Almost without exception, the people arguing to overturn were saying, "supervote", and the people aruging to endorse were saying, "it's not about counting votes". In any case, I'm calling this debate NC, and will relist this on AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing administrator appears to have judged the article on its merits, rather than assessing the discussion for consensus. The closer's comment introduces new arguments (e.g. WP:MUSIC). While the administrator is welcome to contribute to the discussion, it's highly inappropriate for an administrator to close an AfD in this manner. The administrator has already declined another editor's request to relist, opining that "Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes." How the administrator knows this is unclear. Pburka (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check out the discussion on my talk page. Considering the overdue-for-close AfD had no votes for over a week, then two delete votes came in a day before I stumbled on it from WP:OLD, it's not a stretch of the imagination to assume that it wasn't trending favorably, but who knows *shrug*. --slakr^\ talk / 03:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. While checking out the discussion on the closer's talkpage, which the closer pointed to, it is worth looking at the adjacent discussions by other editors of two other closes this week by this closer; discussions by another sysop here and by another editor here. In each case, it appears the closer was applying a super!vote, rather than judging consensus (writing in the talk page discussion he points to "relisting this AfD won't fix the issues people raised unless someone actually is able to fix the issues people raised."). The AfD was largely about a !vote as to whether the RSs were sufficient to meet GNG -- the closer should assess those !votes, many of which came before the bulk of the RS sources were added. And his crystal balling here at the talk page he links to ("Leaving it open longer would appear to only result in more delete votes"), the initial point he makes for his action, is odd. As he knows from the edit history of the article, many of the RS refs and more fulsome treatments of the subject came mid-AfD, after most of the delete !votes, which would lead one to suspect (if crystal balling were to be acceptable) that an extension would lead to more keep !votes. Finally, even without having extended the AfD for more discussion, I think a closer weighing the consensus would conclude "no consensus" here -- and not enter a supervote as the reason for closing it as the closer did here.Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The closer seemed to pay no attention to the discussion, just giving his own opinion of the matter. Per WP:DGFA, the closer should "...respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". Andrew (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I appreciate the show of good faith, I read each one thoroughly, and even if you go by just the numbers (which you shouldn't, but whatever), it was most accurately 6:3 in favor of delete, given BigCat82's comments (e.g., "The article does meet the deletion criteria" and later explicit "delete" with deference to our guidelines. However, with tighter AfDs, I feel obligated to explain the guidelines. In retrospect, it would appear I should avoid doing so in the future, given how what I said seems to have been warped as an allegation of bias, but whatever... c'est la vie. :\ --slakr^\ talk / 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn my assessment of the discussion was also no consensus - say no to supervotes. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, this was a well-reasoned close that judged the discussion correctly.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closing is not just about counting heads. ✄ (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus Clearly a supervote. The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion. if opinion about an article is divided, and one has a definite view of one's own, it is generally a very poor idea to close according to that view. One should close the articles where one has a neutral view, or where one's personal view agrees with the consensus, or where the consensus is clearly against one's own view and one closes according to that consensus. Myself, I have no opinion on this sort of article, and if the closer had instead contributed to the discussion, I might possibly have closed as delete taking his argument into account, but if I cared about the topic & wanted to delete , I would not have closed or would have closed no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
endorse - it's just a spammy promo. I do agree that "The argument used by the closer was possibly a good one, but it should have been contributed to the discussion" - and the closer deserves trout. But it's still spam. 88.104.31.21 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 88.104.31.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree w/you that the closer deserves a trout, and his argument was that of one !voting on an AFD not one assessing consensus. And I also agree that at an earlier stage, the article was promotional. That was fixed, and the article was certainly not promotional. Mostly, it is blandly factual. And if anything, it leans the other way, reflecting RS coverage by the New York Times and others of negative reactions to the band. Anyway -- the issue here is not that, but whether the close was proper.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse/Stay deleted- The Indiggo wikipedia article was properly deleted. For people to say others have "super-voted" is assuming bad faith.50.74.152.2 (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)50.74.152.2 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 50.74.152.2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Overturn. WP:Supervote. Relist, convert the close to a !vote, give time for any response, then let someone else close. I read a "no consensus" heading towards a rough consensus to delete, but not quite there. Slakr (talk · contribs) close is not a fair close, but is a quality analysis that should help a later close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Salt - the article meets the requirements for deletion as a few genuine editors making lots of constrictive edits to save the article from deletion could only find sources with wider coverage incidentally and briefly mentioned the twins, and the information on them are in general quite negative. And article about how bad the living twins are shouldn't exist. And the the daily spamming and edit warring by the twins and their sock puppets were fully resolved only after the deletion. BigCat82 (talk) 12:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few mistakes in that statement. The sources range in size, but include full-length. Also, your suggestion that negative notability does not qualify as notability is incorrect. Third, any POV editing was addressed well before the close, and in any event that is not a reason to delete an article at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was deleted, most of the full length ones were press releases, and the majority of independent ones barely mentioned them or were user generated. There were also still plenty of sources like Stiridinromania.eu that were of questionable reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Closer understood that consensus is not democracy, but rather users have been saying in line with policies and guidelines. If only one person pushed for deletion but that person was the only one whose post reflected policies and guidelines; and a hundred people said keep the article for reasons that did not reflect policies and guidelines, consensus would call for deletion. Arguments for keeping the article seemed to reflect an article that did not yet exist. Time was given to turn that article into that purposed notable article, and if it wasn't enough that probably indicates that there really wasn't much out there to demonstrate notability. Many of the sources that might've worked to indicate notability, as BigCat82 said, negative. As a result, the girls, through their shared account and some sock-/meat-puppet accounts, tried censoring the article to not reflect the sources, even removing some of the sources that were beginning to support the idea that they might be notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If admins were tasked with simply counting votes, then sure it should have been closed as "no consensus." But several of the arguments made for keeping were flat out wrong (saying it should be keep because the band may be notable in the future, for example). Hot Stop talk-contribs 19:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you've said is true, but the closer didn't just evaluate the arguments presented. Instead, he or she introduced new arguments. This steps well beyond the role of a neutral arbitrator. While the closer may have made the right decision, he or she made it for the wrong reason. This was a summary execution from the bench, rather than a sober evaluation of the defense and prosecution. Pburka (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone who voted to delete the article expressed concern that the band failed the general notability guidelines because all mentions in reliable sources were merely trivial ones. The closer of the AFD made that the first rationale in his closing statement. It's not a supervote.

Besides, if you're agreeing that there was consensus to delete, which you seem to be, but the closer deleted for the wrong reason, aren't you just wikilawyering at this point? Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And those !voting to keep indicated that it met GNG, with treatments that were beyond the shorter mentions in the New York Times and the like. Which was the case. And -- Pburka isn't wikilawyering in the least, unless you think it is wikilawyering to point out that the job of the closer is not to exercise a supervote, but rather to close per the consensus of the proper !votes of the established editors !voting.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except those that decided to keep for such brilliant reasons as "the twins are notable together only" and "keeping this article can prevent future recreation of the same article in promotional language...Also the twins may get more popular in the future." Those aren't based on any guideline or policy and were rightly ignored. If you throw away such junk arguments, it's easy to see consensus was in favor of deletion. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you focus on the fact that !voting editors (we're not !voting here--but looking at what they said) indicated that there were in fact longer than passing mentions (which was unquestionably true), you see the basis for keeping under GNG. There was a difference of opinion among editors as to whether those refs, both short and long, satisfied GNG. That's the crux of it. And that's called a lack of consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC

Closer: (WP:GNG) requires <the topic> to be the subject of reliable coverage
WP:GNG: Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material.

Policy/guideline-based interpretation of WP:GNG was important for this AfD, as the claim was made that the topic received coverage on Huffington Post, The New York Times, and Today (NBC). At least one delete !vote failed to address WP:GNG. The two editors citing "trivial" don't show that they understand the WP:GNG difference between "significant coverage" and "trivial". An NC close allows a new AfD in two months, but given the amount of clean-up that has taken place on this article, interest in such may lapse. Unscintillating (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse : Admin's actions in judging arguments were correct. The closing admin did not introduce new argument, he merely explained the policies. "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention" - well, a single phrase about a flop in several reviews of AmGotTalent is not. Yes, "it need not be the main topic", but it must be ...er... significant. So far not even a paragraph. - Altenmann >t 05:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not remotely true. There were a number of articles that included more than a passing mention, and more than a passing phrase (or sentence, or paragraph).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, so far, of 20+ refs I see only one good: from TIMM. You may convince me to change the !vote. Which other ones you consider significant, independent? E.g. this one is not.- Altenmann >t 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, per several above. Closing isn't vote counting. It's weighing the arguments/statements in the local discussion, as well as the broader policies/guidelines/common practice of Wikipedia. While I didn't check the links in question, based upon the discussion there and here and a cursory read of the article, it looks like a fair appraisal of the discussion AND policy. - jc37 23:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

SnarXiv – No consensus. Given the scattered directions of the current discussion, an automatic relist seems unlikely to be productive. While this no consensus closure defaults to maintain the status quo, it does not preclude further discussion and/or consensus being established on talk pages and/or future XfD processes. – IronGargoyle (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Inappropriate merge result from an AfD in which there was no clear consensus for merging (two for, one against, others not discussing it), no previous mention of the subject at the merge target, and absolutely no discussion or notification of the proposed merge on the merge target page (arXiv). This close effectively creates an administrative fiat for the SnarXiv site to be mentioned on arXiv and for a redirect to exist from SnarXiv to arXiv, neither of which is (I believe) warranted by the tiny significance of SnarXiv to the broader arXiv topic. I'd prefer to discuss this normally on the article talk page as a merge request (where of course I'd be opposed) but that is now closed off as it would be effectively re-litigating an AfD and causing it to have a different outcome. As an interested editor of arXiv I only found out about this through the placement of the old AfD closure notice on Talk:ArXiv, and since the closer refuses to change anything (and insists the redirect remain, calling any attempt to persuade him/her otherwise a "lynch mob"), it seems the only remaining recourse is DRV. If I had !voted in the AfD it would probably have been a delete, and I think that would be a reasonable outcome for the AfD, but the consensus is unclear enough that re-opening would also make sense to me. More broadly, I would suggest that when merge proposals occur within AfDs, the talk page of the merge target should get a courtesy notification (as I have just done on Talk:Princeton University for a different AfD), and that no close happen until people who watch that page have been given a reasonable chance to respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I wouldn't comment on the DRV (and I'm realllly tempted to, given David's representation of that diff), but the point raised about letting the merge target know beforehand might actually be a good idea to adopt as part of the deletion process. I imagine it might be a good "standard practice" for either a {{relist}} or for a bot to notify a proposed merge target when someone places the first merge-vote, for reasons that I actually did mention in my diff / the thread (i.e., sometimes editor pools can be totally different for two pages and one side's "merge" might not even realistically be appropriate, and the closing admin may have no idea if he doesn't have expertise in the area). *shrug* anyway... carry on. :P --slakr^\ talk / 08:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no difference- From the discussion, only merge and delete were possible results and I can't really fault slakr's close. I do not agree that this close establishes an "administrative fiat" that SnarXiv must now be mentioned on the arXiv article. Even if some content of SnarXiv is merged there, there is nothing preventing editors from agreeing to remove it as part of the editing process. That's perfectly acceptable. Reyk _YO! 08:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly does make a difference as it has already caused huge chunks of irrelevant material to be added to the arXiv article with no discussion or local consensus for the addition and no place but here to discuss it without re-litigating the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said, there is nothing that prevents that material being removed as a normal part of the editing process. I was quite clear on that. Did you not read past the bolded words in my comment? Reyk _YO! 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I have already removed it. But in doing so I have effectively caused the article to be deleted, in contradiction to what the closed AfD said should be the outcome. Don't you think that might be a problem? And there's also the issue of the redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus The main point of the close at AFD should be whether there is or isn't a consensus to delete. This close was too prescriptive. Mandating particular merge targets is not sensible because there are often multiple possibilities and AFD usually does a poor job of considering these. In this case, the topic is one of several fake paper generators such as SCIgen so perhaps we need a general article to cover them all — I have started paper generator to fill this gap. Or, if we were to stick to physics, there's possible targets like list of experimental errors and frauds in physics. Sorting that out is a matter of ordinary editing and so outside the scope of the deletion process. Andrew (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When the consensus at the AfD is that there should not be a stand-alone article, it would clearly be perverse to overturn to something that defaults to keep. Based on the discussion the only other thing than merge that this could be overturned to is delete. Reyk _YO! 05:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge was an extraordinarily unwise suggestion but it was suggested and supported and so I suppose the close wasn't wholly outside administrative discretion. As a consolation, no one should be so naïve as to think WP:MERGE requires anything to be merged. "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary". Thincat (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Personally, had I participated in the AfD, I probably would have !voted to delete, and if I had been in closing mode, I probably would have relisted it or possibly closed it as no consensus, but I don't see anything here that's so far beyond the pale that it requires being overturned. If anything, the result has effectively evolved into a delete because the merged material has already been reverted by another editor. If that's what's going to stand, however, somebody should delete the now-orphaned redirect (the target no longer mentions the redirected subject) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update on that -- I just looked at arXiv. @David Eppstein:, you brought this to delrev for people to discuss, and then immediately went ahead and implemented your desired solution anyway. When I wrote my comment immediately above, I didn't realize it was the same person who did both of those. If you're going to object to the closer's actions and ask for a review, you should at least wait for that review to end before doing anything. I've undone your reversion of the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRD. My revert was the R in BRD. Now we should have the discussion. Except first it seems we have to have a meta-discussion here before we can even have the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm objecting to is the simultaneous bringing this to delrev, and acting on it. "Hey, guys, can you all please devote some time to figuring out if the admin who closed this messed up, but it doesn't really matter what you decide because I've already gone ahead and implemented the solution." If you had just reverted it and explained why on the article's talk page (which I see you did), I wouldn't have any problem. But then why also drag it to delrev? Maybe instead of undoing your reversion, I should have speedy closed this review as moot? Either of those actions makes sense to me. Wasting time on delrev when the outcome has already been implemented doesn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the B? Neither the close nor the merge's implementation qualify. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist' Basically, I agree with David E that a delete would have been more suitable than a merge. But if I had seen it, I would have argued for delete, but not closed as delete because there was insufficient consensus for that. Looking at the discussion, it should probably have been continued, not closed. A nonconsensus close would have been premature without relisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
I would have preferred no consensus or "redirect, history available for merging." There was a discussion among a few users at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect (October 2013). I can see the point that if a redirect outcome can be enforced by summarily reverting restorations, merge should carry some weight as well. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fair reading of a rough consensus. The topic does not warrant a standalone article, and there is a plausible merge target. If David Eppstein is right (he looks unchallenged at Talk:ArXiv#SnarXiv), then the close should be converted to delete, either here, or via RfD for process sake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the merge was completed, WP:Merge and delete attaches. Even if the merged text is removed, it has not been deleted, and the source page should not be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The merged then unmerged content could be rev deleted. Or the deleted page history can be moved into a subpage. But if the content is not to be found in the target article, there should not be a live mainspace redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that these options should be available, but I doubt that consensus supports their use. RD5 would be a hard sell, and WP:Redirect#Reasons for deleting #10 fits only partially. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or Relist. I don't see a consensus there. And the closer's job is to follow consensus. Not say: "How would I have !voted -- If anyone !voted the way I would have !voted, I will closed it that way, and say it was (obviously) the strongest argument!" That seems to be the flavor of both this close and others recently by this closer.

That said, there is a second issue. The closer seems to be of the belief that if there is a paucity of input, but has already been one extension of time to comment, the greater good is being served by closing the AfD ... because it is already "late" and clogging up the works. That's not IMHO the right thing to do. Another relist (and, in certain circumstances where consensus or lack of consensus is still not known, a third relist) are more appropriate, and more likely to lead to proper closes in accord with the views of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2014

Steven Dale Green – Endorse earlier closure. But, given that substantial time has passed and new information changes the circumstances around which the earlier closure was determined, there is nothing preventing this article from being re-created with new information. Any such recreated article may be subject to normal AfD proceedings at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing administrator's closing argument was based on BLP1E. Well, Green died in prison in February, so BLP1E no longer applies.

The closing administrator closed the AFD as merge to Mahmudiyah killings. But Green has been described as the very first former GI to be charged, as a civilian, under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 -- so equally strong arguments could be made that the coverage of Green belonged in Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000.

Bill Cain, a widely admired playwright, wrote a play 9 Circles, where the protagonist's case very closely paralleled Green's. So, equally strong arguments could be made that the wikipedia's coverage of Green should be merged with 9 Circles.

In my opinion, we should avoid duplicating coverage of topics in other articles, as much as possible, for various reasons, including duplicating coverage of a topic in multiple articles is a maintenance nightmare, as the different articles could diverge, and contradict one another. In my opinion, when a topic relates to multiple other articles, none of those multiple articles should contain the details on that topic. Shoehorning the details of a topic, into one of those articles short-changes readers interested in the other aspects of the topic. Elements of the coverage of that topic will always be off-topic in the other articles.

Rather, when a topic is related to multiple other articles, I think this is a very strong argument that the topic merits its own standalone article, with only enough coverage in the related articles to put wikilinks to that article in context.

FWIW, Green continued to be sought out for interviews by journalists and documentary filmmakers, after his conviction -- further arguments for notability. Google Scholar search and Google Book search show that reliable sources regard Green as an icon, a symbol, of various flaws in the US military.

For the record I did discuss this with the closing administrator, prior to initiating this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, once someone dies, BLP concerns no longer apply and it's reasonable to re-think any decisions in which BLP1E was a factor. I also note that the original decision was in 2009, and DRV would normally consider it to have expired. This is no longer a news item, it's a historical event. I also see that Green has attracted additional coverage since his suicide, so there are fresh sources to consider (e.g. The Independent, Huffington Post, CNN). I do not believe that DRV should enforce the 2009 decision now.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous. If the "walked into a mall pool while texting" woman suddenly keeled over tomorrow of a heart attack, that doesn't vacate the BLP1E-deletion finding. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For Christ's sake, I'm not talking about the "walked into a mall pool while texting" woman, am I? I said that when someone dies they're no longer a freaking living person! But okay, for the sake of argument let's pretend that BLP applies to people who're dead. What about the other three limbs to what I said?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep as a redirect, dying doesn't magically obliterate the original finding of BLP1E. There will be a brief uptick of sources reporting that the subject died over the next few days, sure, but after that it's back to normal. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but could you leave a response that addresses the other factors I raised -- like that the man has had a well received play written about him, and that scholars have chosen to write about him as a symbol of flaws in the US military system?

I asked the closing admin a question, that I would appreciate you attempting to answer -- how different do you think an updated article would have to be from the version that was AFDed in 2009, before it did not qualify for WP:CSD#G4, which authorizes speedy deletion of simple recreations of deleted pages but specifically: "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..."

I've already pointed out areas where a recreated page would differ from the version that was AFDed in 2009: (1) coverage of press interviews and commentary with Green, post-trial; (2) coverage of scholarly commentary which described Green as a symbol; (3) coverage of the well-received play based on Green's military career and post-military civilian trial; (4) his death, and commentary on that. If you don't agree an updated article that addressed these additional matters would no longer qualify for WP:CSD#G4, what kind of update do you think would no longer qualify? Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued obsession with bios of prisoners...the manpower to clean up your GITMO mess a ways back was extraordinary...hasn't changed much, it seems. Nothing has really changed wit the subject at hand here, it all stems from the same, single event. Unless one believes in the supernatural, the likelihood of there being a 2nd event initiated by this person is pretty small, so 1event still rules the day. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your comments to editorial issues.
Shouldn't your comments here be solely about the pros and cons of having a standalone article on Steven Dale Green, whose case has nothing to do with the war on terror?
I would still appreciate any civil views you could offer on the other points I raised, like the scholars who have written about how Green's behavior was symbolic of flaws in the US military. Their authoritative and verifiable views transcend the murders, themselves, as they see them as related to mistakes in the whole Iraq war. I am frankly disappointed that your replies do not address these other issues. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirect. I can't imagine what could possibly be included about the subject (other than pure trivia) that wouldn't fit the Mahmudiyah killings article. While it's true that BLP doesn't apply to the dead, pretending people considered non-notable under BLP1E somehow become notable when they die(???) is some of the most bizarre anti-logic I've seen on Wikipedia. If anything, outside some truly outlandish scenarios confirms the findings of 1E as it makes future notable events impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Nothing wrong with the closer's action. I agree that people not meeting BLP1E don't suddenly become notable by dying. That seems to me to be twisting policy in a way contrary to its intended meaning. Reyk _YO! 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reyk, I think Steven Green was always notable. He attracted more than enough coverage at the time of his arrest to get over the GNG bar, and he'd attracted even more than that since. BLP1E is a special provision for removing content about living people who're only notable for one thing. Isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Even under BLP1E, he was sufficiently famous from international coverage that the article should not have been removed. Now that it no longer applies , the argument for deletion is irrelevant. Wee he dead at the time at the AfD, the B<P1E argument would not have been used and the article would not have been deleted. The coverage is way to important for oneevent to have been a succcessful argument, but anyone who thinks it might have been enough should be argument for relist. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the JetBlue guy dies tomorrow, then he can get his article back? Or this well-endowed woman? Tarc (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moot Nothing was deleted as a result of the original AFD and so the topic is still a blue link and the edit history is all there. As the AFD was 4 years ago and matters have moved on, this is a matter of ordinary editing now per WP:CCC. Such decisions are not binding in perpetuity. Andrew (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation It's a discussion from 2009. New sources exist and the main reason for deletion no longer applies. So basically I agree with Andrew and S Marshall. No objection to a new AfD if someone desires. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum AfD is not designed to be a backdoor to bind admins and DRV into administrating content disputes. Participants at AfD are not presumed to be more knowledgeable on article-specific content issues than are the content creators. For non-deletions such as this one, AfD momentarily establishes the consensus version of the article, where such consensus might not extend to the merge target. The restoration of an AfD merge is a content decision of WP:Editorial policy, not WP:Deletion policy. WP:BOLD applies. If someone disagrees, it becomes a WP:BRD. Unscintillating (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moot. The disputed decision was taken over 4½ years ago and was correct at the time. The redirect is not protected and as Unscintillating says, any decision to change it back into an article is an editorial one and not a matter for DRV. If it is the case that the lister is looking for a consensus to do this, this is not the place to do so. ✄ (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I like the world that you, Unscintillating, and Andrew describe, I've certainly seen "it was closed as a redirect at AfD" used as a trump card in the discussion part of BRD. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, absolutely the correct decision was made at the time, and I don't think there's any dispute about that. Given that, and the fact the article text is still accessible in the redirect's history, I'm not sure what else there is to do here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- As noted above, I think the question is if the AfD result should prevent someone from undoing the redirect. It's always been unclear (and hotly debated) if a redirect outcome at AfD is in some way binding and if overcoming it requires another AfD. So while it is agreed the deletion at the time was proper, what's being asked is to find consensous to allow it to be un-redirected (nearly a word). It is unclear if DRV should be involved in that. If the redirect outcome happened a week ago, I'd argue it would be a reasonable thing for DRV to address. At 4.5 years ago, the AfD result should be pretty much ignored and BRD should take over. If folks are redirecting the article back based on the old AfD, at that point DRV might well be appropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I argued above to allow re-creation on the basis that his death changes the situation about BLP, but as pointed out above, it could probably be better to allow it as an editorial devision on the basis both of his death changing the situation, and the length of time. It would be absurd to have to come here every time the situation in a merged or redirected article changes. This is different from a decision to delete and then redirect, where it might well be argued that overturning is necessary DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone here who read through my whole request, and recognized that I was suggesting that whether the 2009 decision was correct or incorrect, the further coverage of Green in authoritative reliable sources has made that a stale decision.

Some people have suggested that changing the article from a redirect to a standalone article, one that has been meaningfully and substantively updated is an ordinary editing decision -- one that did not require a DRV. Other people have suggested that, based on practical experience, an updated version would be likely to have been (1) reverted based on a claim of G8; (2) reverted and protected, based on a claim of G8; (3) deleted and salted, based on a claim of G8.

I am not going to wait for this discussion to be closed, I will introduce an updated version. And, if anyone calls upon G8 to revert it I will point them here.

Thanks again to everyone who took the trouble to read and try to understand all the arguments, without regard to what conclusion you reached.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but who cares?. Endorse, in the sense of, "The original AfD close was done correctly". But, also, "Who cares?", in the sense of, "That was 4 years ago, no decision lasts forever". Honestly, I think the fact that the subject has died is meaningless. Reading over the original AfD, the important thread seems to be that it was the event, not the person which was notable. That doesn't change just because the person is no longer alive. But, like I said, 4 years is a long time. On its merits, I don't think the article should be recreated, but I would certainly not go so far as to imply that there's some policy reason why it shouldn't be. If it's recreated, and somebody gets their knickers in a twist about it, they can drag it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, allow a fresh nomination at AfD. The XfD is old. There is talk of new sources. A major reason in the deletion discussion, BLP1E, no longer applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2014

File:Casey_Anthony.jpeg – Restored as (apparently) in the public domain, with a suggestion that it should be moved to Commons, which can be done editorially. – Sandstein 10:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There's ample precedent that {{PD-FLGov}} applies to, among other things, all Florida mugshots; per the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Florida Constitution, § 24. The deleting admin isappears to be not responsive to discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus. Elvey (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The WP:Files for deletion/2009 February 17#Casey Anthony.jpeg nomination was unopposed and so was closed correctly as delete according to Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions. However, perhaps the image is PD. Does File:Casey Anthony Mugshot.jpeg have any relevance? I couldn't find the discussions referred to above. If there is still a problem, perhaps Florida State copyrights have been clarified and images could be reconsidered. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my endorse may not have been very helpful. As well as reviewing XfD closes, DRV also has a role in undoing deletions that now seem inappropriate. If Commons is accepting Florida State images as public domain, at the very least WP should consider whether the same should apply here. I don't know the process for such a review. Are such matters decided here at DRV? Suppose many images are involved? Thincat (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The photo is a mugshot created by the Orange County police and as such is not a work of the government of the State of Florida. PD-FLGov does not apply. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse, but... As noted below, the Commons version of the PD FL template is more detailed and asserts that even lower recognized governments of Florida are in the PD (save for certain cases, but mugshots aren't that). That said, while reversing the closing the decision is correct, the right course of action is to upload this file to Commons, since it would end up there anyway. We also need to bring our version of the PD FL template in line with Commons. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The deleting admin is not responsive to discussions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus" - perhaps to be responsive you need to start a discussion? Of the various messages on that talk page, those which would require some sort of response do seem to have been responded to, perhaps that response is not on that talk page, but it seems to happen. The first (at the moment) includes the other part posting a "Thanks for responding on my talk page". The third asking for a more detailed rationale for new users was responded to by this quite shortly after the request etc. The fifth was responded to here etc. I've notified that admin of this discussion for you too--86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear logged out user: At the time I posted the DRV, The deleting admin was not responsive to multiple recent such discussions opened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus".

Ok, Let's take a look - Working backwards, RacingQueen had posted two comments, a few hours before, so I assume you don't expect instant responses? Mercy11 posted a comment which doesn't require a response, it isn't a question (it was however replied to here same day). Someone posted a section title "F.U." I assume you don't expect a response to that? We are now back to 26th Feb, where User:Desiderata45 posted some questions, these were duly replied to here over the next two days. We're then back to the comments I previously mentioned as having replies. So sorry your assertion that they were not responsive is bullshit - it amounts they didn't respond within a few hours to the latest post, or someone posting "FU" to them --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear logged out user: At the time I posted the DRV, The deleting admin appeared not responsive to multiple recent such discussions opened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peripitus". RacingQueen had posted? No, you're mistaken. That was later; there was no impatience evident; you misread the record. OTOH, the responses on other talk pages were not visible, so my conclusion re non-responsiveness was made without it, and I have corrected it. That's one reason why best practice is not to split up a discussion. @Peripitus: Apologies for any offense caused.--Elvey (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the deleting admin I see that I made the correct call here. Regardless of the participation in the debate—thin as usual—this is a local county police forces image, published by a newspaper that is claimed as a state govt work. The image is not PD as stated. I notice that a very similar image of the same person from what looks like the same source is on commons File:Casey Anthony Mugshot.jpeg. I suspect that this one has the same issue, though there are those more knowledgeable about this on commons. - Peripitus (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that our local {{PD-FLGov}} doesn't say the same thing as {{PD-FLGov}} on Commons. According to the Commons template, the tag also applies to works by "counties, municipalities, and districts". According to our local template, it is unclear whether the tag applies to works by "counties, municipalities, and districts". In this case, I believe that the error is in our template. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an important point. User:Masem any thoughts here? Hobit (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would give weight to the Commons interpretation (they are better at knowing when PD is met) to our case, and if that's how they are saying that court decision is to be read, we should be doing the exact same thing, and thus our PD is wrong - that is, as commons state, the PD-ness extends downwards to all recognized sub-entities of the Florida gov't including counties. I would recommend that even without closing this DRV that the file be re-upped on commons, as then we don't need to recreate it here. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This edit is what made our template ambiguous, by removing the bit that reads, "This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution." I am tempted to revert, but ask that someone else who is less involved restore a quote directly from the Constitution. --Elvey (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed decision was taken over five years ago. Will the nominator please explain why it has taken so long to make this listing? ✄ (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@✄: How would I find such files faster? After a license template is restored, how do I find files that were deleted because the template was deleted? --Elvey (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate on commons per Masem. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree that the logical conclusion of this rather productive and illuminating discussion is that the image should be re-created on Commons, that's not strictly within DRV's purview. We can't, strictly speaking, make decisions about what Commons should do. Please would the closer consider restoring the image and adding it to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons?—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nominee, I concur.--Elvey (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one should be deleting work tagged with a license template prior to taking the time to make a minimal effort to learn about the rationale for the template, which would, at a minimum, include reading the template itself, pages it links to (such as, in this case, Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner) and the template's talk page. In this case, the latter page has had this section since a few months after deletion of the file in question. It reads:

…
Validity

The validity of this template has been confirmed multiple times, e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment and elsewhere! The Florida constitution states:
"(a) Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exemptedpursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution." parts (c) and (d), define the records exempted.
BTW, this template has been deleted before: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Template:PD-FLGov .--Elvey (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

--Elvey (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2014

4 March 2014

Frederick A. Aprim – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was a Qworty-initiated AFD, amd I was reminded earlier today about my comments about it. Given Qworty's penchant for targeting potentially notable, but low-profile, writers and academics, I wondered if there was a case for the subject's notability. And there seems to be. Although his work is mostly self-published, Gscholar shows quite a few citations to it [46], and a cursory check quickly turns up discussion of one of his works in a book published by Brill Publishers, a major academic/scholarly publisher. One particularly relevant comment reads "Since then, a number of popular overviews have attempted to fill the gap, but mostly have failed to reach academic standards. The most important are Aprim, 2006, and Aprem, 2003. Whereas the latter work is considerably less influenced by the Assyrian nationalist discourse, and has more on the Indian part of the Church of the East, the first has the advantage of introducing many new data and sources." [47] The book's bibliography makes clear that this is the same Xlibris-published Aprim. That one reference might not be enough to sustain an article, but I'm convinced that Aprim was a writer deliberately targeted by Qworty, not some hapless writer he happened on. The initial AFD was tainted; the discussion rested on false premises, and the article should be restored. (Note: the deleting admin was desysopped and stopped editing, so any notification/request in their direction would be pointless.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we here? That the original proposer may have had ulterior motives is meaningless. That the admin who closed the AfD (four years ago!) was ultimately desysopped is also meaningless; the close looks totally legit and given the arguments put forth, I can't imagine any other decision. On the other hand, see my comments about Northwest Airlines Flight 188. They're as valid for this one as they were for that, so to save time, I'll just copy-and-paste them here.

IMHO, there's no reason to overturn the original (~~almost 2~~ over four year old) AfD decision. That was clearly done according to the consensus at the time and in-process. But, we don't need to overturn the AfD to recreate the article. Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages admits to a few reasons a recreation of a deleted article might be valid; one of them is, Notability status has changed. Has it? I don't know, but it's not so implausible that I would dismiss it out of hand. My suggestion here is WP:IAR, withdraw this review request, save everybody a lot of time arguing about it, let the prior AfD stand, be WP:BOLD and create the new version of the article anyway. If people object, they can always drag it to AfD again, but that seems like more lightweight solution than a deletion review of a ~~two>~~four-year old AfD.

Keep in mind, however, if you do re-create, and it does get dragged to AfD, the onus will be on you to show what has changed in the past four years to make this guy notable now when he wasn't before. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as correct decision at the time with leave to userfy or draftify. ✄ (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Why are we even discussing four year old AfD? I see nothing wrong with the closure. Do not userfy, it would just get abandoned and might end up to WP:MFD per WP:STALEDRAFT. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse rationale based entirely upon assumption of bad faith by nominator... four years ago. Even if we regard this assumption as correct we still have a clear consensus to delete. Regarding any possible re-creation I'd want to see a well-sourced draft or, at a minimum, strong evidence of some sort of leap in notability in the last four years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. I know this happened 4 years ago, but I don't even think it was right to redact that part of the nomination. I think it was advancing just cause for deletion. Them From Space 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (It may help to look not just at the latest version, but earlier ones also) DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Unless there is substantially more than there was then--and I don't think the ref. given above qualifies as substantially more, the decision is very likely to be the same. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Northwest Airlines Flight 188 – Article restored to mainspace with no prejudice against a future AFD – Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This previously deleted article has been resubmited to AfC at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northwest Airlines Flight 188. In its present state at AfC, I believe the article to pass WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:AIRCRASH (which were the reasons cited for deletion) because the incident resulted in changes to procedures and regulations. Is it pertinent to accept the AfC or is an undeletion of the old article required? See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#AfC submission Ochiwar (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is on delrev. Well, no, that's not quite true; I can see the sequence of micro-decisions which led to that, each one logical taken in isolation, but I can't help thinking this ended up in the wrong place. IMHO, there's no reason to overturn the original (almost 2 year old) AfD decision. That was clearly done according to the consensus at the time and in-process. But, we don't need to overturn the AfD to recreate the article. Wikipedia:Recreation_of_previously_deleted_pages admits to a few reasons a recreation of a deleted article might be valid; one of them is, Notability status has changed. Has it? I don't know, but it's not so implausible that I would dismiss it out of hand. My suggestion here is WP:IAR, withdraw this review request, save everybody a lot of time arguing about it, let the prior AfD stand, be WP:BOLD and create the new version of the article anyway. If people object, they can always drag it to AfD again, but that seems like more lightweight solution than a deletion review of a two-year old AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the AFC version to mainspace and have restored the talk page and previous history. It can be discussed in a future AFD if someone wishes to nominate it.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2014 Winter Olympics medals per capita and per GDP – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Reassessment required based on error in process, namely, since the correct interpretation of the reason for deletion can only be Wikipedia:Notability, and not the WP:OR as was wrongly stated by ~~Davey2010~~, who closed the discussion stating WP:OR, the discussion must be closed stating the Wikipedia:Notability and not WP:OR. There's another issue, too. ~~Davey2010~~ should have waited for this question to be answered by Arnoutf because the WP:Notability criteria state and I quote from the Wikipedia:Notability#Why we have these requirements as criteria that it is required "articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization", which has been met in the particular case in my opinion. Even if I am wrong on this second issue, the reason stated by ~~Davey2010~~ is still wrong. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my name out as we've established I wasn't the closer, I suggest in future DancingPhilosopher should use talkpages first before wrongfully accusing!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems you have misunderstood the AfD. Davey2010 was simply the last person to make a recommendation. The AfD was closed by RoySmith. Since Roy did not give a rationale, it would be best to ask about all this on his talk page before coming here. WP:OR can certainly be a reason for deletion if there is no viable article left after "original research" has been removed. It can be unfortunate when questions are left unanswered, but I'm afraid this is one of the many shortcomings of the AfD process. 13:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Thincat (talk)
Comment/Reply - @DancingPhilosopher: - 1.I hadn't closed it, 2. My entire comment was NOT the reason for it's deletion, It helped but certainly wasn't just my comment..... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One could go 'round and 'round for quite awhile about whether the primary reason to delete should have been OR or notability, but the result is more important than what reasons were considered and in what measures. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer. I didn't bother to write an extended analysis in my close because it seemed so straight-forward. FIrst, the obvious. Yes, I know it's not vote counting, but the opinions were running 2:1 in favor of delete. To go against the flow, I would have had to discount most of those arguments on their (lack of) merit, which I'm not afraid of doing, but didn't see that in this case. The real killer argument, mentioned by several participants in the AfD, was that this has already been decided. In:

(some of which covered multiple, similar, articles), we have already established overwhelming consensus that this topic is some mix of non-notable and OR. I didn't see anything in the discussion to make me believe new events or policy changes had happened in the past 4 years to make that pre-existing consensus not applicable here. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Clarification_of_G4 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RoySmith, thank you for clarifying what kind of reasoning was behind the decison you made. My comment is that I don't find it very convincing because - as was explained by kelapstick here "Different years are entirely different subjects (to some degree)", and by Technical 13 here "What is specific to 1996 does not apply to 2014". --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DancingPhilosopher:, please don't misunderstand my comment (and that of Technical 13). That was specifically related to the question of if they would be eligible for G4 speedy deletion. I did point out that using common outcomes is helpful for predicting the way that deletion discussions will go, in this case, they would point to delete. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that there's an interesting correlation between olympic medals and wealthier countries, but there's a consensus that Wikipedia isn't the place to explore it. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @S Marshall As explained above, concensus about previous years does not apply to 2014 because in previous years there were no notable sources reporting about those years, while this year the subject was covered by notable sources, which makes your line of reasoning flawed. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closer had consensus to delete. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order Why is this listed under the AfD page rather than the article itself? How do we fix that? Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Stalwart111 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- @DancingPhilosopher: Just take your loss and leave it, this is wasting a lot of time (including your own) that can be better used to improve other articles. Arnoutf (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Expressed consensus was quite clear, and this is in the nature of a list article, where the deference to community sentiment is particularly strong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - closed per consensus. Not liking consensus is a different thing. Stalwart111 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus was clear. Reyk _YO! 02:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No substantial error in process by closer. DRV is not AFD round 2. ✄ (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reminded of a recent, televised statement by President Obama. He was praising an activist and mentioned that the activist "Spoke truth to power". The difference on here is that "the power" is comprised of anonymous parties. Nice guys and truth often lose as the "powers that be" (majority) wrap themselves in "consensus" rules and regs. I'd bet you dollars to donuts that most if not all who voted to delete this article - are Americans. And there, boys and girls is the real story.--Achim Hering (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not appear to be true. I just visited the user pages of all the delete voters and, of the four who list their nationality at all, only one was American. You should have checked this yourself before making comments of this kind and, even if you were right, you'd still have to explain why you think it even matters. Reyk _YO! 05:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't really care either way about the article, but I'd suggest to the closer that it's helpful to include a rationale in any case where the answer isn't absolutely open-and-shut, or where someone is likely to get confused as to why you've taken a certain action. It can stop these things from ending up at DRV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hummingbird Heartbeat – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The delete/redirect votes from myself, @Gongshow:, @Adabow:, and @Lankiveil: cited WP:NSONGS as for why the track was not notable while two of the "keep" voters argued it was notable based on it being a single and charting (which were actually moot points since not every single is notable, and the chartings were rather low and not notable charts to begin with, the South Korea chart only being a download chart), one of the "keep" voters didn't even provide a reason to keep, and the rest misinterpreted WP:NSONGS. The song has very little coverage from reliable sources that aren't from album reviews, and even those reviews only briefly discussed the track. WP:NSONGS also states that coverage within album reviews doesn't make a track notable, which the keep voters seemed to have misunderstood. I have talked with closing admin RoySmith about this, who mistakenly believed a "keep" consensus had been reached. Gongshow gave a very in-depth analysis on how it is not a notable track per WP:NSONGS. Whether it gets deleted or redirected, the song is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Gongshow did indeed give a very in-depth analysis that the topic does not meet the notability criteria but, even if we accept the analysis, this does not prove that the article should be deleted. WP:Notability (music) (of which NSONGS is a part) says "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". In these situations the closer has to give weight to policy-based arguments but he also has to avoid making a decision based on his view of what right-minded people would think. This is a difficult position to be in and I accept the rationale the closer gave on his talk page.[48] Thincat (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case of conflict between a specific notability guideline like NSONGS and the GNG, DRV usually decides that the GNG should prevail. That's how we should decide in this case as well, so endorse. A well-reasoned close.—S Marshall T/C 10:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Also, the delete/redirect votes carried more weight/strength than the "keep" votes, and WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. The strength of arguments matter more than number of votes, and none of the "keep" arguments (correctly) cited policy therefore making them not-as-well-supported as the delete/redirect votes. Regarding deletion the "rule of thumb" bit on meeting criteria, it was actually indicating that merge/redirect is an acceptable alternative to deletion when it fails to meet notability guidelines. We can't ignore the fact that it fails notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can't ignore the consensus that it passes notability. Taking the two discussions together (and my view is that the first AfD is recent enough to be taken into consideration as well as the second), and disregarding the struck votes as we should, I think there's a pretty clear consensus there. I realise you think these people are wrong, but DRV is not for cases where you simply disagree with the outcome. It's for cases where there was an error in the close.—S Marshall T/C 03:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There was in fact an error in the close- no consensus had actually been reached. The WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG policies indicate it fails notability. Also, consensus in the case of AfD is policy-based, not vote-based. The policy-based arguments to not keep definitely outweighed the "keep" votes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've noticed that every time someone doesn't agree with the majority, they trot out WP:NOTAVOTE. (And every time someone thinks the majority is right, they cling like a limpet to WP:CONSENSUS.) Raul's Law #300.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CONSENSUS states that "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". So again, strength of arguments carry more weight than number of votes. If the debate hadn't been closed so soon, there may have been consensus to redirect rather than delete. Either way, "keep" was not the consensus. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's years of precedent toward keeping singles from major notable artists, and it appears this was reflected in the AFD discussion, TWICE! The real question to ask is, "Would the encyclopedia be improved by having articles on every Katy Perry single except this one, and if so why?" I can't think of any reason it would be. There was also some strange IP socking/votestacking going on in the recent AFD that makes this seem like a bad-faith attempt to delete an article for some reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not it was a single in this case is moot when there is barely any coverage from reliable sources. Besides, I've seen singles from major notable artists that never get articles, and the two singles from her first album Katy Hudson never got articles. Why did they not? Because they lacked significant coverage. Being a single doesn't automatically make a song notable. The notability policies seem to have been misinterpreted and/or overlooked in both AfD's. WP:NSONGS states that an article should only be created if there is in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that are NOT album reviews. The vast majority of reliable sources that address the song only do so briefly, and are part of album reviews. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Starblind: The IP sockings were those from User:XXSNUGGUMSXX himself. Check the SPI filed. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended by WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS. During the AfD, I outlined why I believed the song to be non-notable. There were multiple keep rationales that I felt were weak -- "it was a single" and "it was performed on tour" do not satisfy NSONGS, and even "it charted" comes with the qualifier in the guideline: "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria". But that said, since there is a condition under which this song meets NSONGS ("a reasonably detailed article"), there is no sense in doing anything else but keep. Gong show 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. It still fails GNG, though, which can't be ignored. Detailed or not, it fails more NSONGS criteria than it passes. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2014

Endorse as a reasonable reading of the community discussion(s). Other discussions have indicated the community is skeptical about NSONGS as an exclusionary criterion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It still fails WP:GNG, though. We can't just disregard WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not it truly fails the GNG is debatable, but even working from the assumption that it does, GNG is a guideline, and like the rest of Wikipedia's practices may be stretched or ignored if doing so is in the interest of improving the encyclopedia. In this case, deleting this article outright would blow an unnecessary hole in a topic where we otherwise have a solid set of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - On the contrary, it wouldn't blow holes into anything. It could be better to redirect, though. There is too little information from credible sources available to have an article. The only credible sources that mention it only do so briefly, and it would require in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. If we were to look problems other than lack of significant coverage, it also is widely unheard of throughout the globe. It also did not achieve any notable accomplishments (i.e. popularity, high chartings, or even charting on any notable charts), and had no significance to her career at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, especially per Andrew Lenahan's and S Marshall's comments. A detailed and reasonably sourced article about a (modestly charting) single from a bestselling artist; as Andrew says above, how does deleting this improve the encyclopedia? --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If we were to take out all the album reviews, it would be a stub at best. As WP:NSONGS indicates, coverage within album reviews does NOT make tracks notable or count as significant coverage, and songs unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not be made into articles. Keeping this doesn't help the encyclopedia at all because it fails notability per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG, which state that it needs significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. This being a single is irrelevant, and so is its charting. Of all the reliable sources available, they only mention the song briefly and/or are album reviews. Why are people disregarding the notability policies? If not deleted, it should definitely be redirected to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2014

2 March 2014

Priscilla's Model Management – Speedy recreation permitted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Per the discussion at User_talk:Technical_13#re_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPriscilla.27s_Model_Management where the deleting admin who is no longer an admin but would've been happy to grant this request left on their talk page (User_talk:Cirt/Archive_21#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FPriscilla.27s_Model_Management), "This article was deleted years ago for only having marginal notability at the time, and based on my research the agency appears to have increased coverage by RS since then and I am requesting the article be restored to WT:Articles for creation/Priscilla's Model Management so that it may be expanded. Thank you." — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few results in Google Books and an additional fifty-five (55) results in InfoTrac news database archive. I'm no longer an admin, but I've certainly got no objections to its existence as an article. The subject appears to have a good deal of source coverage from secondary references. — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation (while technically endorsing the close) The AFD was closed correctly but only had 2 participants, the nom and one weak delete. Thus, a good-faith effort to work on the article shouldn't be out of the question. It's pretty far out of my area of expertise but a quick Googling seemed to indicate that it's notable and probably passes WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow recreation - basically a PROD with some support (albeit, weak support). Discussion was fine and closer got it right on that basis. But we have a good-faith request from an editor in good standing (who discussed it with the deleting admin), the tacit (if not open) support of the deleting admin and some sources to substantiate the claim that an article would survive a future AFD. This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how DRV should work. Stalwart111 07:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, this is definitely how DRV should work, with a focus on improving the encyclopedia and good faith all around. Someday maybe they'll all be like this. :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grant request. Discussion was appropriately closed, but this was a borderline soft delete and there are no indications of any barriers to recreation with better sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.